Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [Lords],

To be read the Third time this evening, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Scarisbrick Estate Drainage Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered this evening, at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Rhymney and Aber Gas Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Edinburgh Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSIONER (SIMLA).

Mr. HOGGE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the post of Public Health Commissioner at
Simla will be vacant in August of this year; and whether those considered for the appointment will require to hold a British diploma in public health?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The appointment is made by the Government of India, and I have no information as to the second part.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that every junior Commissioner in this service must hold the British diploma in public health before he receives the appointment, and can we not receive an assurance from the Government that this post, which is the best in the Indian Public Health Service, shall not be given to any man who does not hold the same diploma which is required for everybody who joins the service?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not aware that the facts are quite as stated by my hon. Friend, but I will draw my Noble Friend's attention to this point.

Mr. HOGGE: Why is my hon. Friend not aware of this, when every man who enters the service is made aware of the fact that he cannot enter the service without holding the British diploma in public health, and why should a senior position be given to anyone who dues not hold that diploma?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that anyone appointed to the service in this country must have that diploma?

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is this appointment made by the Government of India without reference to the Secretary of State, and has the Secretary of State any power of confirmation or refusal of confirmation?

Mr. RICHARDS: The appointment is made by the Government of India without reference at all to the Secretary of State. With regard to the other questions, the reason I am not aware of this provision is that there are certain exceptions.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the hon. Member aware that if the position is as indicated it will effectually stop any recruiting for the Indian Civil Service; and does he know what a danger this is?

Mr. HANNON: Is it proposed to supersede the qualification of the British diploma of public health by some other qualification?

Mr. RICHARDS: There is no such suggestion as that, but I will promise to bring this matter to the notice of my Noble Friend.

Sir H. CRAIK: You cannot do it too quickly.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, now that the Punjab Government has notified that it has been Compelled to prosecute the publishers of newspapers containing matter calculated to excite the feelings of one community against another, the Government of India will introduce legislation to put a stop to the license of abuse that since the repeal of the Press Act has been unchecked in the Indian Press?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have no reason to thank that proposals for such legislation are contemplated.

Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman think over this matter, because it is very serious?

Mr. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of certain Belfast newspapers who are doing the same thing in regard to the Irish Treaty, and why should there be any difference between Ireland and India in this matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: That is a matter for the Colonial Secretary to deal with.

COMMUNIST POSTER (CALCUTTA).

Sir C. YATE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give any information regarding the document signed President in Council, Red Bengal, posted on the walls of public buildings in Calcutta and also sent by post to the police officers, judges of the High Court, and others in Calcutta, announcing a campaign of ruthless assassination of police officers and any others obstructing their comrades or helping the Government; and whether the authors have been traced and arrested or what has been done in the matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have ascertained that the facts reported in the Press as
to the circulation of this document, and its terms, are substantially correct. The Bengal Government have declared all copies of the leaflet to be forfeited under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and every effort is being made to trace the offenders. So far as I am aware no arrests have yet been made.

Sir C. YATE: Is there any hope that an arrest will be made? Is there anything going on in Calcutta to put an end to this state of things?

Mr. RICHARDS: We are making an effort.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his noble Friend to find out whether it is possible to do anything to prevent this sort of thing occurring in the future?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes.

KENYA AND UGANDA RAILWAYS.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it has now been finally decided whether the railway lines in Kenya and Uganda, authorised under the Supplementary Estimate for £3,500,000 voted last March, are to be constructed by departmental administration, by local partial contracts under the supervision of the existing railway management, or by a single public tender for the complete work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): I am still giving close consideration to this question, which presents many difficulties. In the case of those parts of the extension which lie in Uganda, the Governor of that Protectorate has urged strongly that it is essential in the interests of the natives of Uganda that the conditions of labour should at every stage be under his control, and it is represented, therefore, that the principal of contract is inappropriate even to the extent of small contracts for portions of the earth work. In the case of the portion which will be in Kenya, the same difficulty does not occur, and here I have to consider the arguments, as between a main contract and Government control with small sectional contracts, based on expedition in beginning and completing the work and
ultimate economy and efficiency. Any contract, large or small, which I may decide upon will be offered to tender.

Mr. LORIMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Material required will be of British manufacture?

Mr. THOMAS: That is one of the conditions.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: How much of this amount goes to Kenya and how much to Uganda?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot tell the exact proportion.

GOLD COAST (TAKORADI HARBOUR).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the estimated sum of £2,500,000 for the Takoradi harbour works includes the erection of necessary administrative buildings, such as the custom house, post office, and harbour offices?

Mr. THOMAS: The estimated sum includes the cost of various railway structures and customs sheds which form an integral part of the harbour-works, but not such other administrative buildings as those to which my hon. Friend refers. These latter buildings will no doubt be erected separately by the Colonial Government when the Takoradi township is being laid out and constructed.

MOSUL (ATTACK ON BRITISH PATROL).

Lieut.-Colonel T. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give particulars concerning the killing of members of a British patrol in Mosul?

Mr. THOMAS: I have seen a Press statement on the alleged incident, apparently emanating from a Turkish source. I have received no report from the Acting High Commissioner in confirmation of the statement.

Sir C. YATE: Have we a British garrison at Mosul at the present time?

WEST AND EAST AFRICA (NATIVE LANDS COMMITTEE).

Mr. BROAD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has determined the constitution of the Committee which he is setting up to inquire into land questions in West and East Africa; and, if so, whether he can now give the names of the chairman and members of the Committee, and the terms of reference?

Mr. THOMAS: The Committee will consist of the Right Honourable Lord Islington as chairman, with the following members:

Lieut.-Commander R. T. H. Fletcher, the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
Mr. J. S. W. Milne, the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
Mr. E. D. Morel, the hon. Member for Dundee.
Sir Walter Napier.
Mr. C. Strachey.
Mr. A. Wigglesworth, and
Mr. Leonard Woolf.

The Committee's terms of reference are are:
To consider the systems of native tenure and usage of land existing in the British Colonies not possessing responsible government, Protectorates, and mandated areas in (a) West and (b) East Africa (exclusive of Somaliland); the laws now in force therein and the effect of their application upon those systems, particularly in regard to the transfer of land to non-natives:
To report what amendments, if any, to those laws and what modifications, if any, in local usage are desirable, having regard to the present and future well-being of the native population and to the economic development of the Dependencies concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

PIRBEIGHT CATTLE-TESTING STATIONS.

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that on the management of the Pirbright cattle-testing station a loss was incurred in 1922–23 of £1,778 on total outgoings, including interest on capital of £3,081; whether he can give the figures for the year 1923–24; and whether there is any hope of this station becoming self-supporting?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am aware that a loss of £1,778 occurred in 1922–23 on the working of the cattle-testing station at Pirbright. The charge for interest on capital however was £1,254 and not £3,061 as stated in the question. I regret that the figures for 1923–24 are not yet available. With regard to the last part, I may explain that in view of the falling off in the pedigree cattle trade between this country and South Africa, to which the loss in question is due, the Ministry decided to close the station as from the 31st March last.

Mr. HANNON: When will the right hon. Gentleman have the figures ready for 1923–24?

Mr. BUXTON: I understand in a few days.

Mr. HANNON: 12.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the cause to which he attributes the heavy loss in 1922–23 in connection with the farming operations at the Pirbright cattle-testing stations, amounting to £642 on a total outlay of a little over £1,500; and whether he can give the figures for 1923–24?

Mr. BUXTON: The actual loss on the farming operations is £358, excluding interest on capital and headquarters' administrative expenses. The farm in question was being managed for the purposes of the cattle-testing station, and with the shortage of stock at the station had lost much of its usual outlet. In addition, it will be remembered that the period in question was a very difficult one for farmers.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue these stations?

Mr. BUXTON: The whole of the stations are now devoted to research in connection with foot-and-mouth disease.

Mrs. MARGUERITE HARRISON.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mrs. Marguerite Harrison was ever in British employ; and whether her reports were ever received by any British Government Department or official?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I presume that my hon. Friend means British Government employ, in which case the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; no communications of any nature have, so far as can be traced, been received by any Government Department from Mrs. Harrison.

ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the short time remaining for discussion, he will issue a Paper giving particulars of the financial proposals to be submitted to the House as a result of the Anglo-Russian Conference, so that Members may have time to consider the same before the promised Debate takes place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I propose to have Papers laid before the House prior to the Debate on the results of the Anglo-Soviet Conference.

TREATIES (REGISTRATION).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government are aware of any treaties or conventions concluded between signatories to the Treaty of Versailles which have not been registered with the League of Nations in accordance with the terms of the Covenant?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

JAPAN AND RUSSIA.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the existence of a secret treaty between Japan and Soviet Russia; and whether he can make any statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to reports of this, nature, but so far as I am aware they are with out foundation.

INDEMNITY ACT.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 23.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has
been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal on Wednesday last in the case of T. J. Brocklebank Limited v. The King, and the observations of Lord Justice Scrutton that the claimants, who in his view had suffered a wrong at law, should be deprived of their remedy by a misunderstanding of the obscure language of the Indemnity Act, and that he expressed his regret that the Government in such circumstances should keep money illegally obtained; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to and to the observations made by Lord Justice Scrutton. Having regard to the circumstances in which payments in this and similar cases were made, and to the decision of this House expressed by its passing the War Charges (Validity) Bill, I do not propose to take any action.

Sir K. WOOD: Are these not rather serious observations by a very distinguished Judge and ought not something to be done when Judges make comments of this kind?

Mr. WEBB: I can only say that full consideration has been given to the observations made by the learned Judge, but this House has come to another decision.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Major CHURCH: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflict of expert opinion regarding the effect on military and naval strategy of the construction of a Channel tunnel, and the fact that the extensive and increasing use of aircraft vitiates former objections to the project, the House will be given an early opportunity of expressing its opinion on the scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not in a position to afford facilities for such a discussion; but, if there be any general desire for a Debate on this matter, it could no doubt be raised on the Appropriation Bill if a request were made through the usual channels for this to be done.

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general interest in the question of the limitation of armaments, he will, when making his promised statement to the House upon the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, provide opportunity for discussion upon the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion has been made that this question may be raised this week in the course of business, which means that a discussion is possible.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it still the intention of the Prime Minister to make a statement on this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I never said that it was my intention to make a statement on this question, but that if any question were raised I would be prepared to answer it.

MRS. STAN HARDING.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will be willing to consider evidence from Mrs. Stan Harding to show that her condemnation and imprisonment in Russia, as the result of the action of a lady who has claimed to be an American Secret Service agent, involves considerations which are more far-reaching than a personal dispute and afford grounds for the submission of her case as an aggrieved British subject to the attention of the Government of the United States

The PRIME MINISTER: I have found on examination that it is not possible to make the further demands of Mrs. Harding the subject of representations to a foreign Government.

Mr. HARVEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider any fresh evidence?

The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to fresh evidence, if it relates to an assumption that Mrs. Harrison was a secret agent of a foreign and friendly Government, it is impossible, I am informed and advised, to take any steps with regard to it.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Did the Prime Minister bear in mind the con-
siderations indicated in his first answer, when he gave his pledge to the National Union of Journalists?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are all liable to get extra information. I did my best in the circumstances, and I find that it would be most improper to make the representation suggested.

LITHUANIA (DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION).

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether, if the Lithuanian Government has now ratified the Memel Convention, he will take immediate steps to accord full diplomatic recognition to the representative of the Lithuanian Government in London?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Memel Convention has been ratified by the Lithuanian Parliament. As soon as the act of ratification has received the signature of the President, and the formalities have been completed, His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps in the sense indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no delay in doing this very much prolonged act of justice to a friendly nation?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a "prolonged act of justice," but the friendly nation has had to bear its share in the responsibility for the prolongation. I have already taken steps to see that t; o unnecessary delay takes place.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

OUSE DRAINAGE WORKS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the nature of the proposed drainage works to be undertaken in the basin of the Great Ouse; what is the estimated Cost; when work will begin; and how many men is it estimated will be employed, for what length of time, and from what local authorities' areas will the men be drawn?

Mr. BUXTON: The proposed drainage works are for the improvement of the
tidal channel and of the outfall of the river Ouse. The cost has been roughly estimated at between £1,250,000 and £1,500,000. The other details desired are not available at present.

BENEFIT (NEW RATES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour the date on which the new unemployment benefit will commence for those who are qualified?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The increased rates of benefit payable under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act will operate from and including the 14th August, namely, the second Thursday next after the commencement of the Act, which received Royal Assent on Friday, 1st August. My hon. Friend will, of course, observe that the 14th August is the commencing date of eligibility for the new rates of benefit. The first actual payment thereof will normally and generally be Friday, 22nd August.

Mr. THORNE: Will the unemployed receive their pay on the old system until the new one is in operation?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

Mr. COOPER RAWSON: Will aliens also receive benefit on the same date?

Miss BONDFIELD: Those who are entitled to benefit under the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SHEEP SCAB (DOUBLE DIPPING).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, out of 991 outbreaks of sheep scab occurring between January, 1923, and April, 1924, 882 occurred in England and Wales, and only 109 in Scotland, making 13 outbreaks for every 200,000 sheep England and Wales and only three for every 200,000 sheep in Scotland; that statistics further show that, of the 109 outbreaks in Scotland, only 27 occurred between January and April, 1924; whether he is aware that, if local authorities in the South of Scotland require double-dipping of sheep in their areas, as is now proposed, in order to
comply with Regulations made by local authorities in England and Wales, it will seriously prejudice the sheep-breeding industry North of Stirling, inasmuch as the Regulations will be costly and, in many cases, impossible to carry out for lack of the additional grass parks required; and whether, in view of these facts, he will give effect to the representation of local authorities from both the South and North of Scotland that double-dipping should only be required within a limited distance of farms on which outbreaks have occurred?

Mr. BUXTON: The facts stated in the first two parts of the question are correct. With regard to the latter part, the representations received at a recent deputation were to the effect that my Department should take over the control of sheep scab from the local authorities and abolish their power to make Regulations, a request to which I could not accede. The proposal suggested in the last part would not be effective in preventing the spread of sheep scab, which is due chiefly to unreported outbreaks.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible in any other way to meet what will really prove to be a very serious handicap on sheep-breeders north of Stirling if these proposed regulations are carried into effect?

Mr. BUXTON: My information is that the system of double dipping is very valuable. I think interference with the right of local authorities would be resented, and I am afraid I do not see my way to press further upon them.

WESTERN ISLES (STEAMER SERVICE).

Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will investigate the circumstances that arose at Lochboisdale, South Uist, on the 2nd ultimo, owing to the failure of the mail steamer "Plover" to convey passengers who wished to proceed from Lochboisdale to Castle Bay on urgent business; and, in view of the hardship and expense occasioned by such a deviation from the usual route, is he prepared to make representations to the mail contractors who, by reason of the mails subsidy for conveyance of His Majesty's mails, have a monopoly of the goods and
passenger service, to avert a recurrence of like circumstances, and in future to ensure that local officials are notified in advance of any necessary departure from the customary sailings?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I am having this matter investigated, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will state in detail the improvements secured under the new contract for the mail service in the Western Isles?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The mail arrangements in the Western Isles are somewhat complicated. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the scheduled services under the old and new contracts; and I shall be glad to give him any further information which he may desire after he has seen the schedules.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of creating a special sub-department to deal with the Western Islands of Scotland?

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, during the Recess, make a point of visiting this part of Scotland and seeing for himself exactly what the difficulties are?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman insure his life before he goes on these boats?

SCHOOL-LEAVING CERTIFICATES.

Major DUDGEON: 50.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Education Department at present refuse to supply to the pupils leaving school before the end of the session the results of their leaving certificate examinations; and whether he is prepared to make any recommendation to the Department with a view to the supply of such information to all pupils?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): Where a pupil breaks off a leaving certificate course before the period agreed upon for its conclusion, the Department have always refused to certify that he has completed it satisfactorily. The fullest warning as to the existence of this rule is given annually, and I see no reason why it should not continue to be enforced.

HOURS OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOY MENT BILL.

Mr. LOWTH: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will make provision in the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill whereby the existing agreements between employers and their workpeople shall be exempt from the provisions of the said Bill?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Bill has been so drafted that its passage into law will enable the Government to ratify the Washington Hours Convention. Sub-clause (5) of Clause 2 of the Bill permits the Minister to sanction collective agreements concerning the limit on the working hours, provided that the circumstances render it impracticable to adhere to the rigid eight and 48-hour limits, and that the hours authorised by the agreement do not exceed 48 per week on the average. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend goes considerably further than this, and would, if adopted, possibly preclude ratification. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider any special case, but only on condition that he is not asked to sanction any agreement which would prevent ratification.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

MUSICIANS, GREATER LONDON.

Major DUDGEON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of alien musicians employed within the area of Greater London, and also the number of musicians of British nationality within such area who are registered at Employment Exchanges as being out of employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the information requested by the hon. and gallant Member is not available.

WAITERS, GREATER LONDON.

Major DUDGEON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of alien waiters employed within the area of Greater London, and the number of waiters of British nationality within such area who are registered at Employment Exchanges as being out of employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the information requested by the hon. and
gallant Member is not available The hon. and gallant Member will remember that, in reply to a question on 4th June by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Kingston-upon-Hull (Mr. Lumley), it was stated that, according to the 1921 Census, there were 3,536 foreign waiters in England and Wales, and 100 foreign or naturalised waiters in Scotland.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us of any restaurant in London of which she has personal knowledge where there are no alien waiters?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that she regretted that no information was available, but surely the Department exists in order to provide such information?

Miss BONDFIELD: In reply to the last supplementary question, may I say that, to get out these specific statistics would mean a very great deal of work for a staff that is already overworked, and the Minister does not feel that it is incumbent upon him to call for this particular Return at this particular juncture.

Mr. LORIMER: Would it not be better to have British employed instead of aliens, and would it not, therefore, be of great advantage to have these details?

Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the restaurants used mostly by hon. Gentlemen opposite are crowded with alien waiters?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make an imputation of that kind?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; it was quite uncalled for.

CATERING TRADE.

Miss JEWSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the evidence he has received of low pay and bad conditions of work in the catering trade, he proposes to set up a trade board?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have now received evidence with regard to conditions in the light refreshment and dining-room part of the catering trade, which satisfies me that there is a prima facie ease for an inquiry
as to whether the Trade Boards Acts should be applied. The necessary preliminary investigation and consultation with the parties concerned will be initiated at the earliest possible moment.

TRADE BOARD DEPARTMENT.

Miss JEWSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour how many inspectors and investigators are employed in the Trade Board Department; by how many have these numbers increased since he took office; and will he ask the Treasury for a further grant, in view of the bad wages and conditions of many workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is necessarily a long one, I propose, with my hon. Friend's consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total number of inspectors sanctioned for the Trade Board Division of the Ministry of Labour is 60. Of these, three are headquarters staff engaged in general control, and three are engaged from headquarters on special inquiries. 48 officers have either been allocated, or are in process of being allocated, to seven divisions in which inspection has been decentralised, and the remaining six inspectors will be appointed later. The total inspectorate, including the headquarters staff and special inquiries officers, sanctioned when my right hon. Friend assumed office, was 30, though, in addition, 10 officers were working as trade board inspectors on loan from other Departments of the Ministry. Further, as part of the decentralisation of inspection, provision has been made for secretarial assistance in each division.

With regard to investigation, which is carried out not by the Trade Boards Division, but by the Statistics Division, for the general work of investigation (including that in connection with the Trade Boards Acts) carried out by them, the total number of officers sanctioned is 28 (including four officers in control). This figure compares with the total staff of eight in post at the time mentioned in the question.

With regard to the last part of the question, we shall carefully watch the progress made in the work as the result
of this increase in staff, with a view to seeing that it is adequate for the present work or any further work which may devolve upon it.

WAR OFFICE AND LULWORTH COVE.

Sir K. WOOD: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has reconsidered his decision to exercise compulsory powers of purchase at Lulworth Cove; what steps he has taken to get another site for War Office purposes; and whether he has consulted the Dorset County Council on the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The decision then indicated has not been varied, but I shall be prepared to stay proceedings as soon as the owners of the land grant a short lease on suitable terms. During the period of such a lease, an alternative site could be sought for, but in the few weeks since the previous negotiations for a lease failed no effective steps to find such a site have been practicable. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware that the Dorest County Council have been consulted, but I am generally acquainted with their view. I should like to point out that the Department does not in any event propose to lease or purchase substantially more land than has been in our occupation for some years past. That land does not include Lulworth Cove itself, and I gather from a report made by two members of the late Army Council, after they had visited the site, that the amenities of the Cove and its approaches are but little affected by the War Department occupation of adjoining land.

Sir K. WOOD: As the right hon. Gentleman has had a considerable time to look out for another site, is he not able, the same as any other person, to know when his lease will end or when his tenancy will determine? Is he not aware that the Judge who tried this case gave a judgment against him, and why does he seek to go behind that position? Why cannot he get another site instead of taking this beautiful spot?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise or necessary to flout public opinion in this way?

Mr. WALSH: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), I would remind him that he was a Member of successive Governments which held this place for years. I do not know what responsible position he held, but he held quite a big one, and he filled a very large place in the public eye. Under those Governments in which he did occupy such a distinguished position seven or eight years elapsed, and, as a matter of fact, since the decision of Mr. Justice Sankey, only a few days have elapsed, and it has been impossible for me to deal with the matter on any other lines than those that I have defined in this House. In so far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) is concerned, I am quite sure that there is no desire on the part of this House or of the War Department to flout public opinion, and I have specially arranged that the answers in this House shall be so given as to leave an alternative, which I hope will be reached.

Viscount CURZON: The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that this tank school does not interfere with the amenities of the coast, but does he not think that six-pounder shells, fired, in some cases, 4,000 yards out to sea, interfere with the amenities of the cove and with the fishermen?

Mr. WALSH: If these are the facts, I should certainly think it would interfere with the amenities of the cove.

Mr. WALTER REA: May we understand that the public will have the same right of access to Lulworth Cove as they had before the War?

Mr. WALSH: I have tried to reassure the House on a matter of much complexity that, in respect of the arrangement of a lease on suitable terms, the War Office will do its best to reach that conclusion. If such a lease can be arranged, none of the public amenities about which so much has been said will be interfered with.

BREAD (PRICE).

Sir K. WOOD: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the price
of bread is to be raised to 10d. a loaf in London on Monday next; and whether it is disproportionate to the real condition of the world's wheat market?

Mr. WEBB: An announcement appeared in the Press last Friday that the Incorporated Society of Principal Wholesale and Retail Bakers had stated that the leading firms will not increase the price of bread at present; but that a meeting of the society will be held this week, when the question of increasing the price will be considered. I have no further information on the subject, and in the circumstances, the second part of the question does not arise. The matter will, however, be kept closely under observation.

Sir K. WOOD: In the announcement to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred me, was there not the statement made that there will be a meeting on Wednesday of this week, when probably even a bigger increase will be announced than that at first contemplated, and will he fellow the example of the Canadian Government and take some steps in the matter, by way of investigation or otherwise?

Mr. WEBB: I cannot say at present that there will be an investigation until we know a little more about the crops in the northern hemisphere. I mentioned in my answer that there would be a meeting on Wednesday, when the question will be considered. I should like to point out, however, that the price of bread has not been raised in London as regards a large part of the supply. It is only some bakers who have raised the price, and possibly after Wednesday, it will still be possible to make a distinction.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether political exigencies in the United States in regard to the Presidential election have anything to do with the rise in the price of wheat?

Sir F. WISE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the rise in the price is entirely owing to the foreigner putting up the price of wheat against us?

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that people are entitled to do what they like with their own private property—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. THORNE: Let me finish my sentence—as long as hon. Members opposite believe in the present individualist system? Answer that!

Mr. WEBB: As regards the last supplementary question, I will not venture to go into that subject at such short notice. With regard to the previous question, I should like to say that, apparently, the cause of the recent advance in the wholesale price of wheat has been due, in the main, to the prospect of the Canadian harvest rather than of the harvest of the United States. In regard to the other questions, I can only say that the Government at present can do no more than keep the matter under observation, and I shall be very much surprised to learn that the Canadian Government have been able to do anything else. In conclusion, I would point out that the rise in the price of bread that has already taken place is not yet as much as the rise, which we fortunately got rid of, in 1922.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is this a justification for the high prices?

Mr. MILLS: Having regard to the possibility of just such another manipulation in the next harvest and the next harvest after that, is not the right hon. Gentleman desirous or even anxious to institute some kind of investigation, together with the Government of Canada, to avoid such possible exploitation of the harvest?

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate

HOUSING (BUILDING MATERIALS).

Mr W. THORNE: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether all the brickfields in the country are now working at their full capacity; and, if not, is he taking any steps to see that all the brickfields will turn out the full capacity for his housing schemes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The Report of the National House Building Committee shows that all the brickfields of the country are not yet working at full capacity. The Government have taken
the most practical steps for securing an increase in production, by the adoption in their Housing Bill of a long programme of house building which will enable manufacturers with confidence to develop their resources and increase their output.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a new system of house building which will supersede bricks altogether?

ROYAL AIR FORCE (PENSIONERS' WAR SERVICE).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the present Air Force Regulations provide, in the event of Air Force pensioners, being recalled or invited to return to service in case of a national emergency, that such pensioners will be entitled to draw their pensions while serving and count their war service for additional pension; and whether he will give the reference to the Regulation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): The question, so far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, is under consideration, and the Regulations contain as yet no provision upon the subject.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these pensioners are treated in the same way as the Admiralty have treated theirs, and not in the way in which the War Office have treated theirs?

Mr. LEACH: I think the hon. and gallant Member can have confidence in our sense of fairness.

METROPOLITAN PRISONS (TUBERCULAR CASES).

Mr. STRANGER: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the Metropolitan prisons there are insufficient cells set apart for offenders suffering from tuberculosis and that, in consequence, such offenders are put in ordinary cells; and whether prompt steps can be taken to improve the accommodation for those suffering from this disease?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): At Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs and Holloway the number of special cells for tubercular patients is in excess of requirements. At Pentonvine and Brixton the number of tubercular cases is often somewhat larger than the number of special cells. When this occurs, the cases are either located in adjoining ordinary cells, or are removed to separate rooms in the hospital. In all cases alike the patient receives the appropriate treatment. It is in fact proposed to provide additional special cells without delay.

Mr. SIMPSON: Are the cells disinfected after the tuberculosis patients have left left them?

Mr. DAVIES: I must have notice of that question.

EUGENE GUIDICI.

Mr. STRANGER: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Eugene Guidici, who has been in this country for over seven years, is now in the hospital of Pentonville Prison serving a sentence, passed last week, as an alien who has failed to notify; that the sentence is a month's imprisonment and a recommendation for deportation; and that this man is and was at the time of the alleged offence suffering from a mental breakdown; and whether he will take steps to release him in view of the fact that he could have had no criminal intent at the time?

Mr. DAVIES: It is true that the offence of which this man was convicted was that of failing to keep his address properly registered with the police; but as is often the case there is a good deal lying behind. The man is somewhat hysterical, but is not of unsound mind and is not unfit for imprisonment. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of this country and probably also of the alien himself that he should be deported at the end of his sentence.

Mr. STRANGER: Is the hon. Member aware that this man is at the present time in hospital because he is mentally unstable, and therefore could not have been guilty of the offence with which he is charged?

Mr. DAVIES: That is not the information in my possession.

STAGE CARRIAGES, METROPOLIS(LICENSING INSPECTION).

Mr. GROVES: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether the men engaged with the Metropolitan Police for the licensing of stage carriages pass any examination in mechanical engineering or coach-body building, or whether they have worked at either trade; and whether he will consider the appointment in future of men who have worked for more than five years at such occupations, thereby ensuring a reasonable degree of public safety?

Mr. DAVIES: The police officers employed in the inspection of public carriages are selected because of their previous experience as motor fitters, engineers' apprentices, or in allied trades. Before these men are promoted to the higher grades, they must produce a certificate from a recognised technical institute showing that they have passed a satisfactory examination in motor car engineering, after not less than a two years' course of instruction. In view of this I do not think it is necessary to lay down a hard and fast rule as suggested at the end of the question.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: How long has the Regulation been in force?

Mr. DAVIES: I cannot say offhand.

Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Member's answer apply to those who will have the duty of examining the two-cylinder taxicabs as to their ability to get up to 20 miles an hour?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. CLIMIE: 59.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the widespread feeling existing that capital punishment has failed to act as a deterrent to homicide; if he is prepared to consider the setting up of a Committee to go into the whole question of capital punishment, including its effect upon the youth of this country; and to consider an alternative punishment to persons found guilty of the capital charge?

Mr. DAVIES: My right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion that a Com-
mittee should be set up, though he doubts whether such a Committee could obtain any precise information as to the extent to which capital punishment acts as a deterrent.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this Committee shall also have as one of its terms of reference consideration of the morbid reports in the Press concerning murder trials?

Mr. STRANGER: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions to all prison governors to exclude from any prison in which executions are taking place all reporters and Press representatives, and all persons other than the spiritual advisers of the condemned or those specially authorised to attend under a Home Office Order?

Mr. DAVIES: The law gives a discretion in this matter to the Sheriffs who are responsible for executing death sentences. My right hon. Friend cannot override the law.

Mr. STRANGER: Cannot the Home Secretary take steps to prevent people who have not a Home Office permit from visiting prisons? I have never heard it suggested yet that he has not that right.

Mr. BIRKETT: Is the hon. Member aware that under Section 7 of the Capital Punishment (Amendment) Act, 1868, the powers vested in the Home Secretary in regard to this matter are quite absolute?

Mr. DAVIES: The information in my possession is that the Section of the Act referred to states that
Any Justice and Such relatives of the prisoner or other persons as it seems to the Sheriff or the visiting Justices of the prison appropriate to admit within the prison for the purpose may also be present at the execution.
That authority has been given to the Sheriff by statute law and he has exercised it.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Member see that the Sheriffs carry out their duties personally, instead of hiring a hangman?

Mr. FOOT: In the opinion of the Home Office, does it come within that Section if the Sheriff admits members of the Press,
as stated from the Front Bench a few days ago?

Mr. BIRKETT: Has the hon. Member considered the Section to which I have referred, which says:
One of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State shall from time to time make such rules and regulations to be observed at the execution a judgment of death upon a prisoner as he may from time to time deem expedient for the purpose, as well as guarding against any abuse of such execution and of giving greater solemnity to the same.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In the interest of the proper manner of carrying out these executions, is it not necessary that the public should be represented by a reasonable number of members of the Press?

Mr. DAVIES: It is a very difficult and technical matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), and I think I am entitled to receive notice of a question of that kind.

Mr. STRANGER: If the hon. Member ascertains that he has the power to exclude persons other than those mentioned in the question, will he do so?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. F. GOULD: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of issuing, in a simple and concise form, a statement of the changes effected by the passing of the amended Old Age Pensions Bill?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 29th July, a leaflet explaining the effect of the Old Age Pensions Bill and how to claim an old age pension will be available at Post Offices and Customs and Excise Offices as soon as possible after the Bill has become law. Another leaflet, similarly explaining the effect of the Bill and how to apply for an increase of pension, will be sent to all existing pensioners whose rate of pension is less than the maximum of 10s. a week, together with a form of application for an increase of pension.

COPYING TYPISTS (ALLOWANCES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any representations have been received as to the payment of allowances to copying typists who, by reason of their skill in the use of dictating machines, are of greater value to the Department than the majority of their grade; and whether, in view of the recent Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in which he states that £550 a year is saved by the skill of such women, the question of allowances will now be considered?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already considered representations that additional allowances should be paid to typists who are employed operating dictating machines. It does not appear that the use of these machines requires any special skill, and I see no sufficient reason for the payment of allowances.

VAQUIER TRIAL (CROWN COUNSEL).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many counsel were briefed in addition to the Attorney-General for the prosecution in the recent trial of Vaquier; and what sums each counsel, including the Attorney-General, so engaged received?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am informed that three counsel were engaged, in addition to the Attorney-General, at the trial of Vaquier. The question of remuneration has not been settled yet, but as soon as it has been settled, I will let my hon. Friend have the figures.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the fees to be charged are marked on every brief?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand not.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the Attorney-General paid by results?

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Treasury consider reviving the rules regarding the payment of Law Officers which prevailed when Lord Birkenhead was Attorney-General?

Mr. GRAHAM: Obviously, I cannot commit the Government to that off-hand. It would require consideration.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is worth the Treasury's while to economise.

COLONIAL OFFICE (SECRETARY OF STATE'S ABSENCE).

Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked tile Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to deal with any serious disturbance in, or urgent matters connected with, the Dominions and Crown Colonies during the absence of the Secretary of State?

Mr. THOMAS: I see no reason to anticipate that any serious disturbances will occur. In accordance with the practice first established by Mr. Chamberlain, when he visited South Africa, and followed on subsequent occasions by other Secretaries of State when absent from this country, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, will attend to Colonial Office business during my absence.

INCOME TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any information to give in regard to the claim put forward by the officers of the Silesian Frontier Delimitation Committee; and whether he is aware that these officers were promised favourable treatment as regards Income Tax by responsible officials of the Foreign Office, but that these promises have been overridden by Treasury decision?

Mr. GRAHAM: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member's question refers to a claim by certain British ex-officials of the Upper Silesian Plebiscite Commission that remittances made by them to this country oat of their emoluments as members of the Commission should be exempt from British Income Tax. These emoluments, so far as not remitted to this country, were not liable to British taxation, but the suggestion that a promise was made of favourable treatment, extending this immunity to remittances, can only be based on a misunderstanding. It would not be within the competence of any Department of State to override the ordinary requirements of the law in this respect.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the misunderstanding arose on the part of the Department or the individual?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say, but in any case the parties affected could have no claim to such admittance.

Sir C. YATE: Are they liable to Income Tax?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a totally different question, and I think it would be very unsafe to pronounce on it in a short reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

MINISTER TO UNITED STATES.

Sir C. YATE: 21.
asked the Prime Minister whether in sanctioning the appointment of a Southern Irish minister plenipotentiary in America to take charge of all affairs relating only to the Irish Free State, the Governments of the other Dominions of the Crown were previously consulted; and, if so, what opinions were expressed by them respectively?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the first part of the statement which I made on 26th June in reply to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. At present I have nothing to add to what I then said.

Sir C. YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, can he say whether the Dominions concerned were consulted?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. and gallant Friend must know that no statements or communications affecting the Dominions are published without the consent of the Dominions.

Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many millions of Irish people in the United States?

MALICIOUS INJURIES CLAIMS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the definite pledge of the British Government, in their letter addressed to the Irish Provisional Government, dated 26th July, 1922, and re-affirmed by all subsequent British Governments, to the effect that, while the responsibility for meeting claims to compensation rested on the
Irish Government, His Majesty's Government could not divest themselves of the duty of seeing that such claims were met equitably and as promptly as unavoidable difficulties allowed, he will appoint a judicial Commission, similar to the Deportee Commission, to fix compensation for personal injuries and injuries to property of loyalists in Southern Ireland from July, 1922, on the basis of pre-truce legislation, together with compensation to persons whose property has been looted and themselves driven out of Ireland in cases where the Criminal Injuries Act provides no remedy, and in other cases where the Irish Government has not provided the protection which it undertook to provide by its Agreement of January, 1922?

Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government have repeatedly stated their policy—which is identical with that of their predecessors—in regard to these matters, and they do not consider it necessary to appoint the Commission which the hon. Member desires.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that every month that passes makes the case of these unfortunate people worse; and, further, is he aware that they have not received that justice which several Governments of His Majesty have promised them?

Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is going to compensate the refugees who have been driven out of Northern Ireland? Is it not the case that the Southern refugees can return home because law and order has been established, but that the Northern refugees cannot return home yet?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I have addressed to him, and say whether these unfortunate people, whose only crime is loyalty to this country, are not entitled to the same consideration as the deportees?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend is aware that the late Government appointed a Committee to deal with that matter. The policy of the late Government is identical with our own. The question now is whether I will appoint another Committee, and to that I cannot give an affirmative answer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS(ENUNCIATORS).

Mr. MACKINDER: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will place an enunciator in the Map Room of the Library?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): I am considering the hon. Member's suggestion, in consultation with the other authorities concerned.

Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the provision of an enunciator in the Members' Tea Room?

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider providing one in the lower smoking-room?

MOTOR CAR ACTS (OFFENCES).

Mr. STRANGER: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of police charges under the Motor Car Acts and the convictions recorded for these offences; and whether, in view of the necessity for maintaining a high state of efficiency and care in the motor traffic, he will take such steps as will result in the automatic suspension or withdrawal of licences in cases of those convicted of driving to the danger of the public?

Mr. DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I am not in favour of the automatic suspension or withdrawal of a licence on the conviction of its holder, and consider that each case should be dealt with by the Court in its direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

MRS. EVANS MURDERED.

Mr. STRANGER: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the report in the Press of the murder of Mrs. H. E. R. Evans at her hacienda, Puebla, Mexico, and whether he can give the House any information as to the accuracy of that report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I deeply regret to have to inform the House that according to a telegram received this morning from His Majesty's Consul-General at Mexico City, Mrs. Evans was murdered on 2nd August by unknown
assassins. I am awaiting full details which have been promised. I am informed that the United States Charge d'Affaires at Mexico City is taking the matter up with the Mexican Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: What action does His Majesty's Government propose to take in connection with the murder of this British citizen in view of the fact that they have had ample notice that it was likely to take place?

Mr. STRANGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to whether the emissary who went out from the Embassy at Mexico City to assist Mrs. Evans arrived before her death or not? The right hon. Gentleman gave information the other day that someone was going there. Did that person arrive before the murder?

The PRIME MINISTER: My information is that Mrs. Evans was murdered on the road and not in her farm. She was travelling between Mexico City and Puebla; it was on the road back to the farm. I have no further information than I have given. Further information has been asked for and will be in my hands this afternoon.

Mr. STRANGER: Are the Government taking any steps at all to ask the Mexican Government to explain how this took place and why it took place? Are they going to take any steps at all?

The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, when I say I am informed that the United States Chargé d'Affaires is taking the matter up with the Mexican Government, that means that the United States Chargé d'Affaires who is in charge of the interests of British subjects at the moment is taking the matter up and will report to me.

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent any message to the American Charge d'Affaires. Is a British subject to be murdered in Mexico without any action being taken by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Surely an assurance like that is unnecessary in view of what has been said. I only received this telegram since I came to the House and I am informed that steps were taken at once to get information from Mexico City and we hope that information will soon be in our hands.

Mr. HANNON: Has the Government had any communication with the American Chargé d'Affaires about this crime?

The PRIME MINISTER: The telegram informing me of the murder of Mrs. Evans was handed to me while I was sitting here now. I have already informed the House that we are awaiting full details which have been promised which means that we have been informed that details are coming. The details are being collected and the full information will be in our hand's, but until that information is in our hands, I can make no further statement.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Without in the least wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of the information which reaches him confirming the information he has now given to the House that this British subject is murdered, I presume the House may take it That a definite claim will be made through the proper channels against the Mexican Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as I get the information, the House may depend upon me to act upon it, but I cannot say yet what will be done.

IRISH TREATY.

Mr. BALDWIN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make with regard to Ireland?

Mr. THOMAS: An invitation to representatives of the Irish Free State and the Northern Parliament was sent on Friday. It was responded to and a meeting between the representatives of both Governments took place on Saturday. I could not usefully say to the House what the result of those deliberations were, except that a further communication has been received from Mr. Cosgrave, President of the Irish Free State. I propose myself to go to Dublin this evening. If my right hon. Friend will repeat the question on Wednesday I will endeavour to give a more satisfactory answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister asked me to repeat today a question which I put to him last week regarding the Allies' Conference. I would like to know whether he has any information to convey to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am happy to inform the House that on Saturday an agreement was reached between the Allies on certain matters arising out of the Experts' Report. The documents embodying the agreements have been published in the Press and are now being scrutinised by a committee of lawyers. It may be convenient if I indicate the substance of our agreement.
The basis of the Experts' Report is the raising of a loan for Germany in order to put it on its feet economically and enable it to meet its obligations and re-enter the economic system of Europe. On the British and American markets confidence in the Reparation Commission as a judicial body for declaring default has been completely forfeited, and we were informed that so long as it could destroy the economy and credit of Germany by a declaration of default which as a matter of fact might not exist, the security for the loan would be of so little value that the loan would not be subscribed. It was not our business to arrange for this loan (that will be done in the ordinary way), but it was our duty to remove obstacles which would have made the loan fall dead on the money market.
I may take this opportunity of expressing my regret that it has been so often stated that the difficulties we encountered in this part of our work were created by bankers and financiers. They confined themselves to advising as to the state of mind of the investing public, and guided us against coming to agreements that would fail to produce the loan required. We are all much indebted to them for the information and help they gave us.
The arrangement finally made was that a citizen of the United States shall be added to the Reparation Committee chosen by the unanimous vote of the Committee, or, failing that, by the President of the International Court, as a full member of the Commission, when the
question of default is under consideration. The Allied Governments bind themselves to take no sanctions until default has been declared after all the safeguards have been employed.
Provisions have been made for setting up a Committee of six, equally representative of the German and the Allied Governments, with power to co-opt a neutral if necessary, to arrange for deliveries in kind from a list of products settled by it in accordance with the provisions of the Experts' Report. This is to secure smooth delivery and to obviate disagreements.
As regards the steps to be taken to restore the fiscal and economic unity of Germany, an elaborate series of actions was agreed to, setting forth the steps that the German Government would have to take with the approval of the Reparation Commission, and also those which the Allied Governments, or some of them, would also have to take, especially the removal of all vetoes on fiscal and economic legislation passed by Germany, the restoration of full powers to German administrators regarding customs, commerce, railways which have been taken away as part of sanctions undertaken since 11th January, 1923; the same as regards economic control of private properties. Dates have been fixed for this, full operation being fixed not later than the 15th October next. This document includes technical details relating to the transition periods, and also an amnesty and declaration of no molestation for acts done by individuals in consequence of events since the 11th January, 1923. This applies to both sides.
It was essential to provide, so far as foresight would allow of it, some machinery by which interpretation of the Experts' Report and of the agreement we were building up should not be left to individual Governments or mere majorities or interested representatives. The Conference had therefore to agree upon what in the nature of the case had to be a somewhat elaborate and intricate system of arbitration and safeguards, the chief points of which are:

(1) In declaring default the Reparation Commission must be unanimous, or, failing this, an appeal can be brought before a body of three,
2528
appointed unanimously by the Commission, or, failing that, by the President of the International Court at The Hague.
(2) In taking sanctions, the Governments agree that they muse act as trustees for all the interests created by the Experts' Report, and especially do no damage to the security of the loan.
(3) Disputed interpretations of the Experts' Report and the London agreement shall be referred to a committee of jurists.
(4) If the Transfer Committee be equally divided on the question of had faith of Germany the point shall be decided by the arbitration of a Committee of Economic Experts.
(5) Disputes between the Transfer Committee and the German Government shall be referred, on the motion of either party, to an arbitrator appointed by agreement or by the President of the International Court.

As each Government has some doubts as regards one detail or another of the experts plan, any Government may have referred any defect which it has experienced to the Reparation Commission, which shall forthwith refer it to a committee consisting of the Agent-General for Reparations Payments. Trustees for the Railway and Industrial Bonds, and the Railway, the Bank and the Controlled Revenues Commissioners, and arbitration is again provided for if the German Government or Reparation Commission do not agree on the report presented to them.
These safeguards have been taken to secure all parties against decisions which will be regarded as partial and unjust. The effect of the agreement, all of the Allied Governments hope, will be to create a new spirit of co-operation on both sides so that some points that may have still been left open owing to the impossibility of settling them in the present state of the public mind may become negotiable by a change in that mind.
It was agreed that we had reached a point when it was necessary to pursue the discussions with representatives of the German Government, and we hope to
constitute the Conference to morrow morning with these representatives present. In the end, it is proposed at present that three agreements will be executed:

(a) An agreement between the German Government and the Reparation Commission in regard to matters within the competence of the Reparation Commission.
(b) An agreement between the Allied Governments and the German Government regarding matters which require to be settled by direct agreement between these Governments.
(c) An agreement between the Allied Governments themselves regulating matters of inter-Allied concern.

I cannot conclude this Report without expressing my great obligation to and admiration of the Premiers and leading delegates and the members of the Expert Committees who, in a spirit of loyal accommodation, have worked so hard to bring these agreements about

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask one question arising out of that very important statement? So far as I was able to follow the statement, it has been agreed between the Allied Governments that in the event of default being declared they shall proceed to confer with each other as to the steps to be taken. I want to ask whether the matter is left there, and whether any provision is being made for possible differences of view between the Allied Governments as to what sanctions, if any, should be taken in those cases?

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether any part of this loan is guaranteed by the British Government? If not, what is the security? If the £40,000,000 loan goes through, are all the Allies applying for this loan in some sort of proportion? Otherwise it will affect our money markets. Can I persuade the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that Germany has gone on to the rentenmark, to consider increasing the provision in the German Reparation (Recovery) Act from 5 per cent. to 26 per cent., which it was before?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot carry all those points in my mind. Would my hon. Friend be good enough to remind me of them as I go
along? First of all, with regard to the action which the Governments may take with reference to sanctions. That matter remains where it is at the present moment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where is it?

The PRIME MINISTER: At the present moment it is here: when the Governments meet and disagree, then it has been held to be possible for each Government to pursue its own policy. That is how it was left by the Treaty of Versailles. I am not responsible for that. Obviously, that is a very unsatisfactory position. We have got to deal with points as they arise, and there is this to be said: I think that, if hon. Members will turn over in their minds the question as to how the machinery will work, if we can secure that a state of unanimity would be necessary before default is declared, that is the key to the whole situation. Up to now that has been impossible. Now we have secured that. Any further matter that remains, I am profoundly convinced, can be settled if we would once settle down to a state of co-operative confidence in each other. At any rate, hon. Members may rest assured that the question of Governments taking sanctions is not likely to arise in a hurry. The Government will continue to work away at that as best they can after the London Conference has come to an end.
Now as to the point about the loan—and if I do not answer all the points which have been raised might I be reminded, because I want to answer them all. We have nothing whatever to do with the loan. As I have said in my reply, we were not negotiating the loan, we were negotiating a political agreement which, in its provisions, would, in the opinion of those who would be responsible for asking the public to subscribe to the loan, provide a good enough security for the would-be creditors. As soon as we finish this work the bankers and financial houses in New York, London, Paris and elsewhere must set about setting up the loan. All we could do was to satisfy them that the machinery created to make a declaration of default would be so satisfactory that no declaration of default could naturally or humanly he made unless it was perfectly plain that default had taken place. I understand that this covers all the points.

Sir F. WISE: Are all the Allies going to participate in the loan?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are not concerned as Allies.

Sir F. WISE: The money market is.

The PRIME MINISTER: We are not concerned with the money market. In a sense we are. The Government must be concerned with the money market. This is a general proposition and not a specific one in relation to the point with which I am now dealing. When we make our agreement, and the bankers have interviewed the German Government, and the arrangements have been made for the security, then the loan will be floated. But the loan will be floated not under the auspices of Governments and not with the responsibility of Governments.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister has made an important statement in reference to the Treaty of Versailles. Does he take the view that France was right in taking separate action under the Treaty of Versailles, or does he not hold the view taken by the late Government and their advisers, that France has no right to take separate action without the assent of all the other Allies? A second question which I would like to put is this. I am not going to put any question as to his very important statement, because it will take me some time to read and consider it very carefully, and I will seek to put some question on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill to-morrow. But I wish to know whether the bankers have been consulted upon the agreement arrived at, and whether they regard it with sufficient satisfaction to feel that they can recommend it to their clients to advance the necessary money?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards my attitude concerning the interpretation which the French Government put upon the Treaty and the view taken by my predecessors, when I was in opposition I took the view that the British Government was perfectly right in thinking that independent action was not sanctioned by the Treaty. Since I have had the advantage of being in office I have gone through the whole matter again, and I am more confirmed now than ever in the view that the position of the British Government was right. I ought to give
the House an assurance on this matter when this is in final form. At the present moment these are in the form of Resolutions, drafted by the Committees, and some of them were drafted in the early hours of the morning and under very great pressure. I declined to put my signature to those. With the substance I agreed, on some points after a great amount of pressure, but a bargain is a bargain, and we cannot have everything our own way in this matter. But when those decisions have all been co-ordinated and examined by our legal experts, and then brought before us in a finished and proper form, should I find that there is anything in those agreements that might be used by anybody, either friend or foe, to indicate that I have sanctioned anything that has taken place since the 11th January, 1923, I shall propose to put an addendum to the documents saying that nothing in those documents must be held to commit me to those transactions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Or to any acceptance of that point of view?

The PRIME MINISTER: Or to any acceptance of that point of view. What I should like, I candidly confess—and I do not care who knows it—is to apply what I hope is going to be in its working a successful system of arbitration. I should like to apply the same idea to an interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles, so that all disputed points as to Clauses in the Treaty of Versailles shall be referred say—I am only giving it as an illustration—to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. But I am rather afraid, and I am very sorry, that in the present state of public opinion, not in this country but elsewhere, such an agreement would be impossible. I hope sincerely that at the end of six months we may be in a position to arrive at an agreement upon that point, but at the moment it will have to be left over.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the bankers, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement has been submitted to the bankers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The bankers are aware of these agreements, and I have had conversations with them since they have had the agreements in front of them. I hope the House will pardon
me if I do not go further than that, because quite obviously, before the bankers can definitely say whether they are going to float this loan, they must consult the German representatives, and it has been impossible for them to do that. After all, as the House will remember, especially those who have studied the Dawes Report, the State that is really responsible in the end is not France and is not ourselves, but Germany, and, until the creditors find out the mind of Germany, it is impossible for those who are advising people to put money into the loan to say whether the security is a good or a bad one. But, certainly, I can assure the House of this as the result of consultation with the bankers which I had last night and in the early hours of this morning—altogether contrary to my principles, but in the state of affairs we have to be a little liberal with our consciences sometimes—that I think before the London Conference adjourns, we shall have a definite statement from the bankers upon the matter.

Sir F. WISE: There is one point on which the Prime Minister did not reply to me.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that there is to be a Debate to-morrow.

The PRIME MINISTER: Is it tomorrow?

Sir F. WISE: May I have a reply to my last question? As the Germans have gone on the rentermark gold basis, will the Prime Minister consider increasing the German Reparation (Recovery) Act from 5 per cent, to 26 per cent.?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a point which I think, if it is raised in the conversations we are going to start tomorrow, had better be raised then, and I must have Treasury advice before I commit myself.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I should like to ask if any arrangement has been made to set up a Committee to decide the extent to which each country must receive reparation in kind?

The PRIME MINISTER: A suggestion is made—and this, of course, must receive the approval of the German Government,
because it is a matter in which we are in no position to impose and do not desire to impose it upon her—that a Committee, the name of which it is proposed should be the Organisation Committee, should be set up, three and three—three representing the Allied Governments to be nominated unanimously by the Reparation Commission and three representatives of the German Government—and that that Committee should take the schedule of goods which may be paid over in kind in accordance with the Dawes Report and arrange how the transfer is going to take place in such a way as to smooth over the transfer and to remove all sorts of disputes that may arise between the German Government and the German industrialists on the one hand and the receiving countries on the other.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has made any provision whereby this country may renounce its share in the reparations providing that it finds that the acceptance of these reparation goods is detrimental to our industry and employment?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Are we to understand that the negotiations are still being continued on this very important point in the event of any disagreement regarding the cause or causes of default and that we shall have a report?

The PRIME MINISTER: On that point the settlement is complete. We are not negotiating that. We have agreed to it. A matter like that, if it be not unanimously agreed to in the first instance by the Reparation Commission, will be subject to arbitration. Regarding the first question, the whole question of the receipt of reparations will be watched. The great advantage of setting up these Committees and the putting of the Dawes Report into operation is that for the first time we have the prospect of a scientific examination of the result of reparations, and my hon. Friend may depend upon it that, should we observe anything happening as the result of these deliveries, we shall at once take steps to stop it if it be bad. The House, I hope, will not overlook the fact that the provision has been made, and agreed to, that all the workings of the Dawes Report shall be subject to the very closest
examination by all the Governments concerned; and, whenever any one Government has got anything to raise regarding it, it reports to the Reparation Commission, and the Reparation Commission, without considering the matter itself so as to prejudge the matter—that is an important point—shall at once refer it to the heads of the control departments created by the Dawes Report, every one of whom will be experts with the fullest knowledge how things are going and with everything at their fingers' end.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn), may I take it that there is no disturbance of the proportions arrived at under the Spa Agreement between the Allies—the distribution?

The PRIME MINISTER: I declined absolutely to discuss that at the London Conference. It was not the business of the London Conference. The business of the London Conference was the Dawes Report.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then, there is no disturbance?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, none whatever. There should be no misunderstanding. Should there be any proposal of any such thing, it will be the subject of a separate conference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Old Age Pensions Bill,
Pensions (Increase) Bill,
Post Office (London) Railway Bill,
St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
2536
Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Bill,
West Cheshire Water Bill.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill,
Croydon Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Blackpool." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackpool Order) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BLACKPOOL ORDER) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND(APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I desire this afternoon to take advantage of the Second Reading of this Bill to raise one or two questions concerning industrial disputes which are unhappily in existence at this time, and to put one or two questions to the Minister of Labour and perhaps to the Minister of Health. Unhappily, at this time, when we shall, so far as Parliament is concerned, be leaving our business during the next day or two, there are two very unfortunate and disastrous disputes which I venture to think are causing a great deal of damage in their respective quarters. The first one, as the Minister of Labour will anticipate, is the building trade dispute, which has now been in existence, I think, for five weeks, which affects directly from some 600,000 to 700,000 men, and which certainly affects very adversely indeed practically the whole of the working population, at any rate of this country. The building trades at the present moment are engaged, and I think wholly engaged, not only in luxury building and commercial building, but also in a large amount of municipal and house building work.
I understand that the present dispute has arisen through a demand of the building operatives for a minimum increase of 1½d. per hour and 1d. per hour in London, the maintenance of the 44 hour week, and what is called 50 per cent, of lost time. It has been somewhat difficult to follow the varying stages of this dispute. I remember, for instance, the arbitration which was held by Sir Hugh Fraser some little time ago. Then there has been quite recently the court of inquiry over which Lord Buckmaster presided, and which issued its award and gave its version of the causes which led to the dispute. Although both these matters have been before an arbitration tribunal, the dispute still continues, and, as I understand
it, the last conference which the Minister of Labour convened broke up in confusion and both parties left the Ministry of Labour after the chief representative of the employers had been called a "slippery eel" by the operatives. I would advise that distinguished gentleman not to take any notice of words of abuse of that kind. If every assembly was to break up when ever anyone called someone else names this House would be the first to disappear. I am hopeful that on Wednesday next, when, I understand, ho is to see the parties again, the Minister of Labour will at any rate bring that serener atmosphere which always surrounds him, and that there will be no further words of that kind.
I think it is advisable this afternoon in this House that a word or two should be said on behalf of the public in connection with this divide, because undoubtedly the public, and especially those people who are homeless and badly housed, are entitled to say a word or two at this juncture. In the first place, I think most Members of the House will agree that the building trade can be regarded as a privileged trade. I should think it is the only trade in the country that can be said to be fully occupied, and, according to the Minister of Health, it has got a guarantee of 15 years' continuous work before it. I venture to think that of all trades it ought to be able to come to an arrangement and is the least entitled to engage in disputes of this character or to refuse to abide by arbitration decisions. When I see the disputes still continuing—and I blame both sides equally in this matter—I cannot help thinking of the words of the present Prime Minister, when soon after he took office, referring to the building trade, he said that ca' canny had become the policy of both sides. It does appear to me that at the present time the building trade are once again forgetting the public interests in this matter. All the time that they are squabbling house building is suffering and working-class house building particularly is being retarded. I put a question to the Minister of Health a few days ago, asking him what exactly was the position so far as house building was concerned owing to the present building trade dispute. He did not give me a very definite reply, but he said that undoubtedly it was being adversely affected, and I want the
Minister of Labour, if he will, to tell the House this afternoon exactly what will be the position so far as working-class house building is concerned of these terms which are now being asked for by the building trade. I have not had a reply, but no doubt the Minister for Labour will be able to give one this afternoon, and will tell us what exactly will ensue, having regard to public interest, if the present demands, about which I express no opinion, are accepted. I notice in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Friday a very illuminating reply to a question with regard to the cost of house-building. I asked the Minister for Health if he could give the average cost, respectively, of non-parlour houses under the State-assisted housing scheme in February, May, June and July. This was his reply, and it embodies, certainly, a very extraordinary set of figures:
The following are the average prices of non-parlour houses (excluding cost of land and development) included in contracts let by local authorities during each of the months from January to June, the latest date for which figures are available:


Month.



Average prices of houses.


1924.



£


January
…
…
…
384


February
…
…
…
389


March
…
…
…
418


April
…
…
…
416


May
…
…
…
408


June
…
…
…
421


Similar figures are not available as regards houses erected with State assistance by private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 1st August, 1924; col. 2421, Vol. 176.]
I think the House will be very interested to learn from the Under-Secretary to the Minister for Health exactly what accounts for that extraordinary increase in cost, because if this state of affairs continues—I do not know whether it is due to employers or to the men—the extra subsidy which the right hon. Gentleman is about to pay under his scheme will soon be absorbed altogether in the increasing cost. I think it is right to say that at the present moment one-half the amount of the subsidy paid under the new scheme has, in fact, already disappeared. This is a very serious matter, because, as hon. Members know, under this particular new scheme, directly a house exceeds £475 in value, any increase in cost, if the local authorities adopt it, will have to fall on the tenant. I want to
know, therefore, whether, when the Minister of Labour is holding these Conferences, any regard is being paid to the increasing cost which may arise if these demands are met I venture to say, at any rate, that if there is any trade in the country to-day which ought to adopt a reasonable attitude, which ought to submit its disputes to arbitration, and which ought to have regard to public interest and to the interests of the poorer members of the community it is the building trade. I was hopeful that at some of the Conferences being held by the Minister of Labour he would tell the building trust which has now come into existence that instead of working shorter hours they should agree to work longer hours at any rate on house building schemes. I was hopeful that some suggestion might have been made as part of the wage rearrangement of some system of piecework confined to working-class houses, as I believe that is one of the means by which cheaper houses can be more rapidly, erected. I say that the time has arrived, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour will agree, when some regard must be had to the cost of house building in connection with demands of this kind. We have heard a great deal from the Attorney-General about the Profiteering Bill, but that Bill will not help us in this connection, because, as the Under-Secretary knows, any increase of cost on account of wages is expressly excluded from the Bill. It is a matter of some surprise to me that the Government have been content to leave this Bill, if it is to do any good at all, until the autumn sitting and allow the building trade to go on for two or three months without any intervention from Parliament at all.
There are only two other matters in that connection to which I want to refer. One is, Has the Minister of Labour given any advice to the local authorities up and down the country who are now engaged on housing schemes as to what they are to do in connection with this dispute? They are undoubtedly adopting different attitudes. One council is reported on Saturday to have received a letter from the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives stating that the operatives in the direct employ of the council will not be withdrawn provided the council, if a new rate of pay is fixed, agrees that it
be paid retrospectively as and from when the dispute commenced. Another council reports that they have considered the steps to be taken in the matter. They have received a letter from the London Master Builders' Association, and have agreed to pay the whole demand now being made by the building operatives. I only give these two instances to prove there is a certain amount of difference of opinion on the part of the local authorities as to the attitude they should adopt. I want to know whether the Minister of Health has advised the local authorities to pay these increased demands. When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on that point he replied in the negative and said he was taking no sides whatever in this dispute. It seems to me that if the local authorities begin to take sides in the matter difficulties will arise, and I hope the Minister of Labour this afternoon will be able to offer some advice to the local authorities up and down the country in this connection.
The last point in connection with the building dispute is as to the decisions of the Office of Works in relation to this demands of the operatives. I notice that on Friday or Saturday last the Emergency Committee of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives met the First Commissioner of Works to discuss the question of employing direct labour on Government work, and in the concluding paragraph of the report of the proceedings it simply says the result of the Conference is not made public. I think we should know this afternoon whether the Office of Works is as strictly impartial in connection with this dispute as we should expect it to be. Another dispute I want to refer to this afternoon is one of great moment to the country, and one which seriously affects the welfare of a large number of people. It is the electricity strike threat. I observe from the statement issued by Mr. Webb, the London district secretary of the electrical trade union, that he says:
The dispute is a national one.
Then he directs particular attention to London, and he says:
London, with its vast network of electrically-driven railways and trams, and its dependence on electricity for lighting and almost countless industrial purposes, would be much more seriously affected than any other part. … There are 80 generating stations in the Metropolitan area, apart from
those owned by the railway and tramway companies, employing about 6,000 men. In addition, the Underground power house at Lots Road, the London County Council station at Greenwich, and other stations belonging to the Metropolitan, London Midland and Scottish, Southern and Great Western railways would be stopped. The scores of sub-stations all over the place which work from the main generating stations would also cease working. The Brighton line, which draws its supply in bulk from the London Electricity Supply Company, would be included among the privately owned undertakings, all of which would be affected, and you can take it from me that if a strike takes place, it will have more far-reaching effects than any previous strike London has ever had. We have a working agreement with the Engine and Firemen's Union, so that there will be no question of steam trains taking the place of electric trains which the strike would stop.
That is a very serious question, especially as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will remember that I recently asked her what was the exact position so far as arbitration was concerned in connection with this particular dispute, and she made this reply:
Application was made in February to the Joint Industrial Council of the Electricity Supply Industry for a general advance in wages of 10s. per week. The employers' side offered arbitration. A ballot taken in the trade unions concerned showed 5,000 in favour of arbitration and 7,000 in favour of a strike. The number of men employed in the industry is 29,000. At a subsequent meeting on 18th July, the employers' side again offered arbitration, and a meeting of the executive councils of the trade unions are meeting on 30th July to consider the position. A meeting of the council has been fixed for 15th August.
Inasmuch as the House will be rising on Wednesday, I think we are entitled to some assurance from the Minister of Labour that he will not hesitate, if necessity arises, to fully safeguard public interest in this matter. This is one of the strikes which undoubtedly affect matters that apply to the industrial life of the community, and to that extent I hope the Minister will recognise that we are entitled to the assurance I am asking for. The only other dispute I want to trouble the Minister of Labour about is one of some interest to myself upon which, unfortunately, I have not been able to get much information from the right hon. Gentleman. During the last few weeks, I have constantly asked him about a strike brought about apparently by the Miners' Union at Loanend. It appears that the Miners' Union have taken up the attitude that because certain firemen will not join
the Colliery Firemen's Association therefore a strike which involves 500 men must be called.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can go into the details of a question affecting a private association. He is entitled, of course, to criticise the Minister in regard to his action on any matter.

Sir K. WOOD: I will certainly come to that immediately, because my criticism in this matter is that the Minister has done nothing to bring this strike to an end. At this particular colliery, there have been 500 men, I think, on strike for many weeks. Nothing has been done. I have ventured to suggest to the Minister from time to time that he might usefully appoint a Court of Inquiry into this dispute, and let the public know what are the causes, but, hitherto, I have failed to get the Minister up to the mark in that respect. I hope this afternoon, without going into the differences of various associations, he may be able to make some statement. Generally I should like to know whether the Minister of Labour has any further announcement to make upon the general policy of the Government in regard to these disputes. I notice, for instance, since the year 1919, no less than 176,000,000 days have been lost owing to strikes, and that, since that period, over 6,000,000 people have been affected. While it is true, I think, that the Minister of Labour made something of this on the last occasion he dealt with this matter, and how beautiful it had been since the Labour Government had been in power, the public have had experience, I will not say on account of his office, but during his period of office, of the railway enginemen's strike, the dock strike, the London traffic strike, the Southampton strike, the Wembley strike and a vast number of small strikes and disputes.
It has always been very difficult to ascertain what exact loss to the nation is brought about by strikes of this kind, but I notice that, in the report of the London County Council Tramways' Committee, the comparative short strike on the London tramway service entailed a direct loss of £60,000 to the London County Council. From observations that have been made by the Lord Chancellor,
in another place, I understand the Government have under consideration some new policy, or, at any rate, some new consideration of policy, in connection with these disputes. I think, at least, this general observation may be made, that a good many of these disputes—and I speak now in condemnation of the employers' side—have undoubtedly been brought about by a reduction of wages without previous negotiations with the men. Undoubtedly, in a very large number of cases, wages have to be reduced, but where a, strike has more frequently occurred, I suppose, than anywhere else, is where the strike has arisen without any previous negotiations with the employers concerned. I was very interested to observe the statement of Mr. W. J. Watson, President of the Industrial and Political Staffs Guild of the National Union of Clerks—
that during the past year there had been demands for wage reductions in many trade union offices. Some organisations so far forgot the principles on which they were founded—

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, the Minister's salary, and matters for which the Minister is responsible, should be discussed here. Supposing the hon. Member's typewriters went on strike, it would not be a matter to be raised in the House of Commons.

Sir K. WOOD: I quite agree. I was only venturing to illustrate the suggestion I was making to the Minister of Labour, that the time had come for the reconsideration of the policy of the Government in connection with strikes, that these strikes were continually arising through lack of consideration by the employers, and through certain cuts in wages without consideration. I certainly thought it was a striking illustration that in a good many trade union offices this was taking place, and that there was a very justifiable complaint of that action. I want, if I may, to refer to the observations made by the Lord Chancellor in this respect. He indicated, in another place, that the Government proposed, when they were not so pressed by arrears of business, and matters of that kind, to proceed by an investigation of a systematic kind into this question of industrial disputes, "with a view of determining"—and, evidently, his idea was that there should be some investigation—
with a view of determining whether, with the co-operation of trade unions or otherwise, it is possible to investigate the circumstances which lead to industrial unrest.
I was rather disappointed the other day when the Prime Minister, I think, practically turned down a suggestion that was made, which has certainly been backed by very influential opinion, and by the "Times" newspaper in particular, namely, that there should be appointed a permanent Commission to collect facts about particular industries, and to offer its services in industrial disputes. I think a large number of people who have studied the question of these unfortunate strikes will agree, that in far too many cases the court of inquiry, which is, perhaps, the only weapon that can be used, is always appointed much too late. In a good many of these disputes, the court of inquiry has actually been appointed when the dispute is in progress, and, therefore, the suggestion has been made that there should be some sort of permanent Commission, which should collect facts and offer its services. There would be nothing compulsory about it.
Finally I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, since our last discussion, he has made any further investigation into the origin of these disputes, because I observe that the Prime Minister stated a few weeks ago that
Some aspects of the present industrial unrest are creating difficulties of a very serious character,
and he added:
Some recent developments and methods seem in practice and result to be those of mischievous Syndicalist Communism. Far from helping the worker or his trade union, they are likely to involve the one in misery and tile other in disaster. One strike like that which took place at Wembley does the working-class movement more harm, and inflicts upon the wage-earner more injury than can well be described. In the case of Wembley, the blunder was soon rectified, but influences were revealed that have to be watched.
I should be glad if the Minister of Labour could tell us this afternoon whether he has taken any steps in that respect. The Prime Minister concluded by saying:
All my life I have been opposed to the 'sympathetic' strike. It has no practical value. It is simply beating the air. It has one result—a bitter and blinding reaction. It looks so heroically effective in the heat of battle, and it is so subversive. … I know what I am speaking about when I say that as a result of some recent occurrences, the
code of law which has protected workers' organisations for generations has been in greater jeopardy than I have over known.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Sir K. WOOD: In concluding my observations, I hope we may have this afternoon a general statement from the Minister of Labour on his policy in all those connections. We leave a serious responsibility on him during the next two or three months. I must say I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite who, in other Parliaments, made a great deal of fuss and trouble when Parliament was going to rise for two or three months, do not say much about that to-day. Unfortunately, there are these disputes pending, and we look to the Minister of Labour, I hope with confidence, to protect the public, and I hope he may be successful in bringing many that are now in operation to an end. I trust he may be able to indicate some statement of policy this afternoon as to how, generally, this industrial unrest, which, unfortunately, is so prevalent, may, at any rate, be mitigated by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I do not propose, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) will forgive me, to follow the hon. Member in his roving commission into all the various trade disputes of recent times, charging their sins on the Minister of Labour, but I do wish to ask the Minister of Labour one or two questions on a matter in which he is directly responsible, and on which, I hope, he may be able to give a definite reply. When we were discussing unemployment last week, the question of the work which was to be put in hand by local authorities was referred to, and the Minister, at the end of his speech, used these words in dealing with the appeal made to him for greater financial assistance to these distressed districts:
We have not a closed mind, and we are prepared to negotiate with the municipalities and, where the occasion calls for it, to help them in a special way."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 30th July, 1924; col. 2187, Vol. 176.]
Those of us who are particularly interested in the plight of these unfortunate districts, are grateful to the Minister for those crumbs of comfort, but if he could explain to-day in what particular way he is going to assist the authorities during
the coming winter, I am sure those authorities, and the House as a whole, would be grateful to him. This is one of the many problems the Government have inherited, and for which they cannot be held blameworthy; in fact, when they occupied seats opposite, they were most zealous in their efforts and protestations in favour of this question of unemployment being dealt with on national lines, and that local authorities should not be left to bear alone the burden and heat of the day.
Therefore, knowing we have the sympathy of the Minister, I hope we may get some practical help this afternoon, and I am the more encouraged to think so because, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on this question last week—and his office is one which, the Minister will forgive me for saying, is almost more important in this matter than that of the Minister, because the Minister may have sympathy, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse strings—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when dealing with the question, referred to the fact that unemployment Throughout the country on an average was not so excessively bad, except in three particular instances, and he referred to the industries of shipbuilding, engineering and cotton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—and I want to put the two points together—that the burden of rates was crippling the revival of trade even more than the heavy burden of taxation. With these two admissions of the Chancellor I do appeal to the Minister, and to the Government as a whole, that they should do something to relieve the particular districts which are suffering unduly on account of the abnormal unemployment which has been prevalent for so long in certain particular trades. The trades to which reference was made was made in general terms by the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to engineering and shipbuilding. In these I find that, whereas the average rate of unemployment is, according to the terms of the Ministry of Labour's figures of insured persons, 9˙4, according to the latest figures, at the same time on the North East Coast—for which I put in a plea—where marine engineering and boiler making is carried on, the unemployed percentage is 17˙9, while in the
shipbuilding unemployment in that area is 32˙5. You have there double in the one case, and more than three-fold in the other, a burden of unemployment in a particular district which cannot any longer go on bearing the burden by itself.
Not merely is it that the question of solving the burden of unemployment is a heavier burden in one district than another. There is the consequent extra burden on the local rates. The point I want to put to the Minister is this: If, in nearly all the loans he has sanctioned, 65 per cent. or half the borrowed loans for work which is not of a revenue-bearing character is a fair basis in the districts where unemployment is on the average 9˙4, it can hardly be a fair basis where unemployment is double or threefold, and the more so where, in regard to local rating, you have the burden of a poor rate which has increased tremendously in amount in the abnormal stress which has followed the War. May I support my case and show this differentiation by giving one or two figures taken from the Ministry of Health's recent Report? We find that the poor rate of Merthyr Tydfil is 10s., while in Bournemouth it is 1s. 3d. In the town which I have the honour to represent, Middlesbrough, it is 7s. 4d., while in Blackpool the poor rate is 5d. In Sheffield it is 7s. 6d. in Southend 1s. So I might go on: differentiation up to 10s. on the one hand and less than 6d. on the other. The point again I want to make is this: If this percentage of 65 for half the borrowed money, the basis for the grant to the local authority, is sound and just when the poor rate is 1s. in the £, then it is manifestly inadequate when the poor rate, due to unemployment, is 10s. in the £. Therefore, I do submit that there is a very strong case made out for differentiation and for greater assistance to be given to those districts where the burden of unemployment is much above the average, and where, accordingly, the burden of the poor rate for the relief of the unemployed is also high. May I just illustrate the point further by one or two facts from my own town of Middlesbrough, which is only typical of what is happening right throughout. I think it will convince the Minister and the Government, I hope, of the absolute necessity of doing something practical—and at once—if we are to survive during the coming winter.
I find the out-relief expenditure in the years 1914 to 1919 on an average for Middlesbrough to be £18,000 per annum, and the average poor rate 1s. 3d. To-day out-relief has increased from £18,000 to £274,000—a most appalling increase—and the rate has gone up from 1s. 3d. to 7s. 4d. That is out-relief only due almost entirely to abnormal unemployment. Consequently, we have had to borrow money instead of paying our way. We have had to incur a debt of over a quarter of a million, and this money has got to be paid back, this money which has been spent in the relief of distress out of the rates during the next few years, thus adding a further burden to industry. Let me give a few more figures showing the distressful nature of things in the town. On 31st March, 1921, the arrears of rates were only £3,725, or a ½ per cent. of the total collected. On 31st March, 1924, the arrears of rates were £101,000, or 16 per cent. of the rates collected. What is more striking still is that out of 10,200 individual ratepayers and tenants, nearly half of them, that is 4,989, had not paid their rates on 31st March. Consider that! Nearly 50 per cent. of the whole town had not paid their rates on 31st March.
That is a state of things that manifestly cannot go on. It is crippling the individual, whether housekeeper or shopkeeper. It is crippling trade and industry. The chairman of one of the large works in that area, speaking at the annual meeting the other day, pointed out that whereas in normal times the burden of local rates was equivalent to 1s. per ton on the steel produced in that district, to-day that rate has gone up to 3s. or 4s. Other figures I know have been given relating to other districts; but I want to put the case as moderately as possible. I do appeal to the Minister and to the Government to announce that, during the forthcoming winter, they are prepared to help those districts which are so unduly burdened that they are prepared to help them to a much larger extent than they have done in the past. We have talked about this 65 per cent., half the borrowed loan, and it sounds as if it were a financial contribution, but it must be realised it is only for half the period of the loan; and think when the figures are actually worked out of the money that has been spent during the last three-and-a-half years? During
that period we have spent in Middlesbrough over a million of money, and out of that the total percentage grant made by the Government is only 26˙5 per cent., while the other 74 per cent. has had to be found by the ratepayers.
That, I submit, is an altogether inadequate contribution when what you are dealing with is a national problem. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will at least give this percentage for the full period of the loan, otherwise industry and trade will be crippled, and there is going to be no opportunity of trade reviving. One other point I want to make, and that is that the terms and conditions for the granting of this money should be extended. At the present time the grant is only made by the Central Grants Committee for work which is being expedited, and put in hand in advance of requirements. There is a good deal to be said for that in principle. In actual practice it is found that the local authorities, because they can get more help to expedite work, neglect work which should be done now from a health and sanitary point of view in order to get the extra grant of the work which is to be expedited.
There was the other day the case of the Birmingham corporation which applied for a loan of half a million of money in order to get a storage reservoir, a work which would have found employment for a very large number of men, not only in the main work, but in the incidental work of it. That was turned down by the Unemployment Grants Committee "because," they said, "next year or very shortly you will in any case have to tarry out this work." I submit that at a time like the present it is most important that work should be put in hand of a useful character, anywhere and everywhere, and that the Government should not turn a deaf ear to any scheme of a useful character. I appeal to them to leave nothing undone to help in this problem. They have been criticised, perhaps rightly, because they have not had in hand, or been able to put in hand, anything in the nature of large works of a national character. I submit it may be possible to carry out big national works. Surely there is no reason why local authorities, who have schemes already prepared, and everything ready to go on with, and are anxious to do the work, should be pevented from doing it because
the Government are not prepared to give the necessary financial aid? There are large schemes throughout the country in the hands of local authorities which they could put in hand during the coming winter if only the Government were prepared to give the necessary assistance. I submit that so far the contribution of the Government has not been an adequate one, and I hope they will see their way to do more. I am the more encouraged in making this appeal when I note that the President of the Board of Trade is now sitting on the Front Bench. Just a year ago, that is in August, 1923, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Government of that day some excellent advice on this very particular question. He was referring to the necessity of assistance, and he went on to say:
The assistance offered by the Government is not adequate to make them willing to undertake, in the present trading conditions, large municipal enterprises.
Those conditions were the same that the Government are offering us to-day, and if they were inadequate, according to the President of the Board of Trade, in 1923, how much more are they inadequate to-day when trading conditions are worse? The right hon. Gentleman added:
Are we going to stop there? The Government is full of good intentions. I hope the municipalities will take advantage of the offer and engage in these large works, but if the municipalities are not willing to do that, are we going to reconsider it?
I commend these words of the President of the Board of Trade to the Minister of Labour. Are they going to stop there? Are they going to remain satisfied with that which they condemned in their predecessors? I am satisfied from what the Minister said last week that he is prepared to help those municipalities. I only hope that help will he on broad generous lines; that having borne the burden and heat of the day the municipalities, which have deserved well of the nation and this House, and the help of the Minister, will get that assistance in the coming winter—will get State assistance worthy of their need.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I find little to complain about in the matter of the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr.
T. Thomson), and nothing to complain of in the manner of his speech. He has submitted one or two points that I think carry further than he gives them credit for. If the Government once accept the principle of paying for ordinary municipal work out of the taxpayers' money, I am afraid that, though we may have an almost bottomless purse, the bottom of that purse will be found. It is impossible for any Government to look with equanimity at a proposal for paying for the ordinary work of the corporations out of the taxes.
5.0 P.M.
The position that confronts the Government is rather a difficult and delicate one. After three or four years of acceleration of work the time has come when it is getting more and more difficult to find work to accelerate. The special schemes which might have been postponed for five or ten years have nearly all been carried out, but in spite of that the work at present going on is work that normally would not have been done had there been no Government grant at all. Then there is the difficulty when one tries to discriminate between one authority or another. Discrimination, in the view of the Government, after careful consideration, would in practice be most difficult, and we have come to the conclusion that whatever terms probably are offered, those terms must apply to approved schemes from all the municipalities. It is said that the terms are unduly low; that this guaranteed interest for a certain number of years will leave the localities with a tremendous burden that they ought not to carry. But all these schemes, accelerated and otherwise, would be done by the municipalities, if things were normal, within a short number of years. I know of no scheme which has been carried out which in all likelihood would not have been carried out inside a few years if times had been normal. There may be in the country here and there a scheme which is extraordinary of its kind and has been undertaken regardless of whether it was needed or not and which would not have been undertaken at any time if the Government grant had not been made. I think if there are schemes of that kind they form the exception and not the rule, so that one has to consider whether the idea of a grant for a limited number of years is unfair if one believes
that normal conditions will be arrived at inside also a limited number of years. It is the fact that certain districts have been much worse hit than others, but the Government has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make discrimination and that they must give the same kind of treatment for every authority. The, hon. Member was wrong when he said this matter directly affected my Department. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Labour, as a Ministry, cannot employ a single man on any scheme whatever with the exception of its own insurance scheme, but I know what the policy of the Government is quite well, and I will state it.
There have been roughly three kinds of grants in operation. There was a grant made to municipalities for accelerating work of a non-revenue producing character which amounted to 65 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund charges for half the period of the loan or for a maximum of 15 years. The Government intend to raise that 65 per cent. to three-quarters of the interest and sinking fund, with a maximum of 15 years. There was, and is yet, a grant of 50 per cent. for revenue-producing work for 15 years or the full period of the loan, whichever is the lesser period. The Government intends to keep that grant going on its present level. The information at our disposal does not incline us to make a heavier grant in the ease of revenue-producing works than now being made. Then there were works of another kind, works which were undertaken by localities, not out of loans, but out of revenue. There was then a grant of 60 per cent. of the wages paid for work of that kind, with a binding condition on the authority that only a certain proportion of the standard wages for the job should be paid to the people employed on the work. We have removed that limitation and given the authority power to pay wages which are either the standard rate or the rate paid by the municipality itself, whichever is the lower, and now we propose to raise by 25 per cent. the grant for these types of work and to give three-quarters of the wages to the men who are working on the jobs when the job is paid for out of revenue. That is the position of the Government so far as these specially difficult cases are concerned.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman said 25 per cent. increase, and then he said 75 per cent. The present rate is 60 per cent.

Mr. SHAW: The present rate is 60 per cent. 25 per cent increase on that makes it 75 per cent. I am sorry my Lancashire way of using percentages is misunderstood. I have been so accustomed to using percentages that these things come instinctively, and I use a method of presenting them which is, perhaps, that of a specialist in percentages.
May I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) which, I think, was a general demand for all the information in the possession of the Government as to the strikes of the present, the strikes of the future, the results of both and the policy of the Government. I will try to state the exact position, beginning with the powers of the Ministry. The powers of the Ministry derive from the Act of 1896, the Conciliation Act, and the Industrial Courts Act. The position under the first is that the President of the Board of Trade has the power to appoint a, conciliator when agreement is reached for a conciliator, and generally to arrange meetings of the two sides in order that discussion may take place and conciliation may be used to its fullest extent. That Act, however, is now almost obsolete, and the new conditions, similar in type, are the conditions that apply. The Minister may now, if a dispute exists or a strike or lock-out is apprehended, consider the matter and take any necessary steps for promoting a settlement. What is generally done is to help the two sides in every possible way in their negotiations and, if negotiations have broken down, to take steps to get the two sides together again. The Minister may, if the parties consent—the whole thing is based on the consent of the two parties—appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or submit the matter either to the Industrial Court or to a single arbitrator or Board of Arbitration. He has no powers to o compel in any way these two sides to come to an agreement, he has no powers even to insist on a meeting if the two sides refuse, but he has the power, if he thinks fit, to refer any matters connected with the dispute to a Court of Inquiry. I shall have to say something presently about how that power has been used since the Government came into office.
We have been asked whether there is any difference in the policy of the Government with regard to disputes. There seems to be a general opinion in the country, which is shared in the House, that where attempts have been made to introduce compulsory arbitration or methods of that kind the result has been good. That is extremely doubtful as I shall try to show by figures I shall give showing the result of the application of the Lemieux Act in Canada. The Government has no intention whatever of attempting to pass, or asking the House to pass, any Measure which will apply compulsion to either employers or employed. That is a plain and definite statement that I make on behalf of the Government in order that there may be no two opinions about where we stand. Neither compulsion nor any other kind of extraordinary method is in our opinion fit and ready to put before the House, at any rate at the present moment, and it is extremely doubtful whether compulsion in itself is likely either to be possible or effective in the near future. There was a Committee presided over by Mr. Speaker, when he was Mr. Whitley, that dealt with the whole question of industrial relationships so far as disputes were concerned and if I may read one part of their report I think it will give a clear idea as to the opinion held by the Government. The Committee said:
Whilst we are opposed to any system of compulsory arbitration, we are in favour of an extension of voluntary machinery for the adjustment of disputes. Where the parties are unable to adjust their differences, we think there should be means by which an independent inquiry may be made into the facts and circumstances of a dispute and an authoritative pronouncement made thereon, though we do not think there should be any compulsory power of delaying strikes or lock-outs.
That, almost literally, is the opinion of the Government. It is in our opinion at present impossible either to make workers work under conditions they consider to be unfair or to make an employer run a concern under what he claims to be an unprofitable state of circumstances, and we believe that the extension of this spirit of conciliation and the use of the friendly offices of the Ministry of Labour is certainly at present the better way of dealing with these disputes.
We have been asked what we, have done with regard to the powers of the Court of Inquiry. I find since the Act was passed in 1919 there have been 12 Courts of Inquiry. There was one in 1919, another in 1920, the third in 1921, a fourth in 1922 and a fifth in 1923. No fewer than six Courts of Inquiry have been held this year. In other words, we have had more Courts of Inquiry to give the public the facts of disputes in six months than the previous five years could show, and it is the policy of the Ministry of Labour to say that, in all cases where the public interest is affected, the public has the right to know the facts, and because we believe that, we have had Courts of inquiry into the docks disputes, the tramway dispute, the railway shopmen's dispute, the coal mining dispute, the dispute amongst the dockers at Leith and the building trade dispute, so that we have used to the full the powers given to the Minister of Labour so far as inquiry into disputes is concerned, and the result has been good, It is a good thing that the public should know in every case of big industrial disturbance what the facts are, and whilst we cannot accept, either in principle or as a matter of policy, the idea of compulsion, we certainly accept the idea that the public must know what the dispute is about when the public suffers from it. I will now pass rapidly to deal with disputes in this country, and the method of dealing with them under the Canadian system which has been so often quoted. I find that in Canada under the Lemieux Act in 1917 the time lost in working days was 1,134,000 days; in 1915 the total was 763,000; and in 1019 it was nearly 4,000,000 days.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Are those days all that were lost the industries under the Lemieux Act?

Mr. SHAW: So far as I know, these figures are calculated in the same way as they are calculated in this country, and they are comparable figures. They show the number of days lost by the people involved in lock-outs and strikes.

Lord E. PERCY: Then they are the figures for the whole of the country in all industries.

Mr. SHAW: No; if there happens to be a joiners' dispute the figures apply only
to the joiners and to those trades in the place where the dispute occurs.

Lord E. PERCY: But the Lemieux Act only applied to certain utility industry, and it does not apply to half the trades of the country. Has the right hon. Gentleman quoted the number of days lost for all the trades in the country?

Mr. SHAW: At any rate I think the Report shows very definitely that the Lemieux Act has not succeeded, and that when either side feels very keenly the strike continues in spite of the law. Now may I turn to what has happened in this country. There seems to be an opinion that in some way strikes and lock-outs are on the increase in this country, but the figures do not show that that is the effect. In 1920, speaking in round figures, in the six months from February to June the number of days lost through industrial disputes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 4,300,000. In 1921 the total was 79,000,000; in 1922, 18,500,000; in 1923, 4,200,000; and in 1924, 2,700,000. It has been argued that the present Government's occupation of office has been one of excessive industrial turmoil, but the fact is that the number of days lost in tile six months relating to the present Government's term of office has been very much less than the average over a number of years preceding. There is, under the circumstances, no ground at all in fact for the opinion that this is a time of excessive industrial turmoil, and there is no foundation for the idea that the time lost has been as great as it was before, but the figures show a decrease in the time lost under the present Government.
Now may I turn to the building dispute, and here I find myself on very delicate ground indeed, because, obviously a Minister who may he called upon to act as mediator cannot make statements which may be taken to apply to either side, and as my Department will inevitably have to deal with this dispute during the next few days, the House will understand that I must be extremely careful not to say anything which may he taken as showing bias on either one side or the other. I will simply review the actual facts without expressing any opinions at all. It was on the 20th June that the building trade employers came to the decision to lock out the workers in that trade. We immediately took action and got both sides together. I
found when we got the two sides together the case in its complexity and difficulty was worse than any I have known, and I am not unacquainted with industrial disputes. I found that both the employers and the men did not believe in the good faith of each other. The men were absolutely convinced that the employers have not played the game, and the employers were equally certain that the workers had not played the game, and when you have two sides having lost faith or trust in each other the difficulty is very great indeed. We tried our best at the Ministry to get the two sides to come to some agreement. Hon. Members are aware that we failed, and immediately, in consonance with the policy of the Ministry, we set up a Court of Inquiry in order that the public might have the whole of the facts. That Court was presided over by Lord Buckmaster, and the Report which has been issued is well known to the active Members of the House.

Sir K. WOOD: I think it is only fair to say that Lord Buckmaster's Report stated that the main ground of the difficulty was the Liverpool dispute.

Mr. SHAW: Yes, and if I were in a position to argue the case I could go a lot further than that, but I prefer not to discuss it at the present time. After that Report had been handed in we again brought both sides together, and we were in contact with them all the time, and we tried to get an agreement between them. On the 29th July the Chief Labour Adviser, Sir David Shackleton, took on behalf of the Department certain definite steps that led to an invitation being issued for the 6th August for both parties to meet again, and as some newspapers have drawn quite a wrong conclusion from that perhaps I may state just what influenced the Department in calling that meeting for the 6th August. There had been a rather unpleasant incident at the meeting before, and it was evident that so far as the workers side was concerned there were certain executive committees which had to be consulted. The Bank Holiday was intervening, and it was felt to be best in the interest of peace and in the interest of getting a settlement, to allow Bank Holiday to go over in order to allow the men time to consult their executive, so that when the meeting was held again there might be
some definite idea as to what could be done. That is the position up to date so far as the building trade dispute is concerned.
As to what will be the cost of the building of houses in certain eventualities, I prefer not to deal with that question. If certain eventualities occur, a calculation will be made, but it is a bit too early in the day to make such a calculation now, and it is certainly not my business to make calculations as to what will take place if certain things eventuate. I hope that in the present very strained condition of affairs in the building trade that as little as possible will be said in this House to aggravate either one side or the other. It would be perfectly easy to make an attack either on the employers or on the men. There is any amount of ground for making attacks on both sides, but at the present moment that would not help, and the best thing that can be done is to allow the industry itself to come to a final conclusion, and get the trade to work, because any attempt at compulsion front outside is certain to make matters worse and not better.
With regard to the electrical industry there is a Joint Industrial Council, and on the 15th of February last that trade union asked for an all-round increase of 10s., and on the 14th of March that demand was sent to the Joint Industrial Council. The figures of the voting have already been given, but in order to refresh the memories of hon. Members, may I say again that on the question of a strike a ballot was taken in which 12,742 men voted. There are in the industry about 29,000 men, and in this ballot there voted in favour of the strike 7,630 and in favour of arbitration 5,112, the majority in favour of a strike being 2,518.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: But there are 29,000 men in the trade.

Mr. SHAW: Yes, so far as we can ascertain. This vote, however, did not determine the strike, but what it did determine was that if no satisfactory way was found out of the difficulty in future negotiations the ballot was to hold good. There will be another meeting of the Joint Industrial Council, or rather of the National Council, on the 15th August, and the two sides will con-
tinue their negotiations. The London section held a meeting on the 25th of July, arid I hope that the 15th August will see a settlement between the two sides. I am afraid it would be rather premature to jump into the arena before the ordinary meetings of the employers and the employed have finished their deliberations, and such action might be resented by either side, or oven by both sides.
I can, however, tell the House quite openly that it certainly is the intention of the Ministry of Labour, if these negotiations break down, to use every effort in the way of conciliation that can be used in order to bring about a settlement, and in any case, whether in this or any other industry wherever the interests of the public are affected, it will be considered the duty of the Ministry to set that the public is made aware of the whole of the facts. It will not, however, be the business of the Ministry to take sides either with the employers or the workers, because the first time that happens the usefulness of the Ministry of Labour as a conciliatory factor would disappear. Everything we can do in the direction of conciliation will be done and everything we can do to give information to the public will be done. Again I repeat it is not the idea of the Government that a great change in the policy of disputes is necessary, and it is not their intention to promote legislation for the purpose of devising new means of dealing either with strikes or lock-outs. We hope that so far as both sides—employers and trade unionists—are concerned, a spirit of greater reasonableness will be shown; and if it were possible, when negotiations take place between trade unions and employers' associations, for those negotiations to he concluded quickly either one way or the other, I am satisfied that many disputes would he avoided. There is nothing worse than to have men in factory or workshop working away week after week, knowing that a request has been made, and hearing nothing of the result. You get disgruntlement, disgust and, finally, sometimes, revolt. If any word of mine uttered from this place could help employers or workmen quickly to come conclusions when negotiations take place, I am certain that we should avoid wary of the disputes that we so regret.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. HOPE: In the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he dealt with the burden thrown upon local authorities by unemployment, he announced two concessions, and those who are affected will be grateful for them so far as they go, but I am afraid that they do not got very far. I should like just to be sure if I have understood them aright. Do I understand, with regard to the first mentioned, that the Government will increase the proportion of the sinking fund charges on special loans from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent.—

Mr. SHAW: indicated assent.

Mr. HOPE: —but that they will not make any concession as to time, but will only allow half the time as at present?

Mr. SHAW: Half the time with a maximum of 15 years.

Mr. HOPE: Therefore, the Government are not on that point meeting the view put forward by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). Then, with regard to the wages question, I understand that they will increase from 60 per cent. to 75 per cent. the grant on the amount of wages, but that they will do nothing with regard to the cost of materials. Do I understand that there is no concession an that point?

Mr. SHAW: No; it is the workers' wages only.

Mr. HOPE: These two concessions are something, but I am afraid that, in those areas which are most seriously affected, they will go but a very short way, indeed. I am afraid I am bound to take exception to one phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used. He said it was not the business of the Government to pay for the ordinary work of municipalities out of taxes. I am sure that that is not what any of us ask, but we do ask that something should he done to relieve the extraordinary burdens in certain areas, and I cannot believe that the last word has been said when the Government say that discrimination between these areas is impossible. In certain of these areas the post-War conditions have imposed an almost intolerable burden. The machinery of the Poor Law has very nearly broken down under it, and, apart from that, it has been quite
impossible to collect anything like the total amount of the arrears, simply because it is contrary to public policy, and it would be impossible, to sell up so many ratepayers who simply cannot pay the demands made upon them. This state of things especially prevails in certain places—I presume that Middlesbrough is one of them, and Sheffield is certainly another—where the War attracted of necessity a considerable extra population for War industries. There was an urgent call for workers. Workers came from all parts of the country, and there they remained. For a time the effect was not felt, because there was a certain post-War boom, but that post-War boom has now ceased, and people remain there who came from all parts of the country. As it was a national cause that brought them there, as it was owing to that response to the need of the nation that the difficulty in those places arose, it is only fair to ask that the nation should do something, and should not leave it to the people of those areas to bear this burden alone.
I quite understand the difficulties of the question; I quite understand the difficulties of this discrimination: but are they really so impossible? It is perfectly true that you cannot simply take expenditure as a test, or you might be encouraging extravagance; but there are certain tests that you can take. You can take the poverty of the rateable value, as is done in some degree in connection with the extra grants to necessitous areas for education. That is one test. Then you might take the proportion of unemployed to the total working population. That is another test. In the third place, you might take—and I believe that in certain instances this would be the fairest—the proportion of increase in post-War population over the pre-War as compared with the rest of the country. What I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is this—I am quite sure that these unfortunate areas will not take his words as final—I do ask him to get together with his colleague the Minister of Health, and to persuade the Treasury, as I am sure, with the blandishments of his eloquence and with his experience in these matters, he can, to appoint a committee of these three Departments. I believe that if they go at that problem with good will, they will be able to find a formula which, without involving the State in anything
like a bottomless pit of extravagance, will, by concentrating their attention on the worst areas affected, be able to bring to them a real relief, which I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's present proposal will not do. The municipalities and the guardians in these places have been put to a very grievous strain. The difficulties, in particular, of guardians of the poor in some of these areas have been almost heartbreaking. They have stood the strain up to now. Municipalities have done their best, and it is really up to the Government of the nation, in whose cause these difficulties and this strain first arose, to find a means of relieving it.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I should like to associate myself with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope), more particularly in regard to the area which he and I have the honour of representing. As far as I could make out from working the figures out roughly, these concessions which are being made are going to mean really a very small difference indeed. The Sheffield area has, perhaps, been hit as hardly as any area in the country in consequence of the depression which has followed upon the War. Not, only has there been the increase in population to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but during the War an immense amount of expenditure was incurred in the way of putting up new factories by the armament firms and by other firms, upon which they are now called upon to pay rates, the cost of which is very seriously affecting the possibility of their recovery, and is affecting the prices of the commodities in which they deal. I would remind the Government that, shortly after the War, when there was some suggestion on the part of some of these firms to transform their plant to other than armaments purposes, they were requested by the Government to keep their plant in operation. Therefore, I think that from that point of view they have some claim upon the Government which cannot be made in certain other areas.
I want to deal now with the way in which this particular area is attempting to meet the difficulties of unemployment amongst its half million of people. So far as Government schemes are concerned, schemes have been approved to
a total amount of £1,635,000, but we have to remember that the burden involved by those schemes is going to exist for many years to come, and is going to result in increasing the cost of manufacture. Towards that total cost the Government's contribution, so far, has been £650,000, but it seems to me that the Government—not only this Government, but previous Governments to whom appeals have been made—have entirely lost sight of what the areas themselves have been doing. The guardians of Sheffield and Ecclesall have spent £1,978,000 in unemployment relief, and in addition they have had to borrow £2,500,000, which has got to be repaid over a series of years and must remain a burden upon industry during that time. Then, while there has been a Government contribution in the way of unemployment insurance benefit during the last three and a half years, the total unemployment insurance benefit during that period was rather more than £3,500,000. Of the various sums to which I have referred, amounting to £9,700,000, the total Government contribution in all forms has been only £1,500,000; that to say, out of every £1 that has gone in consequence of the condition in which we find ourselves, the Government have only contributed 3s. 2d. We regard that as altogether too small when we consider that our unemployment is very largely due, as the last speaker has pointed out, to the War and to what the city did during -the War. On a previous occasion reference was made to the serious increase which the rates caused upon every ton of steel, and that still applies, probably in a more acute form, or, at all events, quite as acutely as was the case then.
The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) made reference to the question of arrears of rates so far as Middlesbrough was concerned. In a Report from the Ministry of Health's own auditor it is stated that the arrears of rates in September last in Sheffield amounted to £520,000. This 2520,000 is 70 per cent. of the total rates in the year 1913/14, and it is a very serious burden indeed. The auditor goes on to say, in the course of his Report, that half the ratepayers were paying rates by instalments. I pointed out, in a question which I addressed the other day to the Minister of Health, that during the last three years 112,000 summonses for non-payment of
rates have been issued, and that during that period six rates were issued. That means that one ratepayer in six is being summoned for non-payment of rates. That is the very serious position in which we find ourselves, and I venture to suggest that it is one to which the Government should pay some attention.
Now I want to refer to another aspect of the matter. The Brightside and Car-brook Co-operative Society, operating largely in the east end of the city, where the armament firms are more particularly situated, report that, while their sales per member in 1920 amounted to 20s. 5d. per head per week, last year they dropped to 10s, per head per week. That is some indication of the position of affairs. In the past three years they paid, in the form of withdrawals from share capital, dividend and interest, and penny bank withdrawals, rather more than £750,000. I merely mention these figures because they afford some indication, in the case of a society which is doing a very considerable trade, of what the state of affairs is, and it must be remembered that other tradesmen are suffering to an equal or probably to a larger extent. Again, the secretary of the society says:
Thousands of our members, owing to unemployment, have been compelled to withdraw their life savings down to the last sovereign, and it will be impossible for them to recover their former position. As far as we have been able to learn from co-operative sources, the East End of Sheffield has been worse than any other area in this country as a result of the War.
May I refer to one or two individual eases, of which I have a large number here, showing the condition in which these people find themselves, and showing that there is need for something more than the Government have yet done for them. Here is the case of a man and his wife, with arrears of rates amounting to £11 5s., and that man in seven months has earned only £19 17s. 8d. When you have provided for rent, there is not more than 4s. a week for each of them to live on. Here is the case of a man, wife, and three children, aged 16, 13, and 10 years respectively, an engineer, which is one of the skilled trades, whose total earnings, with the family, are 35s. 6d., working out, after rent is allowed for, at 5s. per head per week, owing £21 13s. 4d. for arrears of rates. Then there is the case of a man, wife, and six children, whose ages vary from 18 to five years, earning 35s.,
owing £22 1s. 10d. for arrears of rates. There are quantities snore of the same sort of cases, indicating the position in which very large numbers of these ratepayers find themselves.
A request was made some few months ago for a Government grant of 75 per cent. of what was required for local work, and that, I think, is what the Ministry are suggesting to us that they are going to give to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "For 15 years!"] The request was made, so far as loans were concerned, that the State should raise the money and that the municipalities should contribute 25 per cent. In regard to schemes and works, the Minister said just now that the schemes are very largely exhausted, but the suggestion was made that there was a great deal which might he done in our own neighbourhood, with a number of small authorities through whose districts important roads went, and with county councils concerned. None of them wanted in any way to spend money, and there was a suggestion from the Sheffield Corporation that there was a great deal that might be done in regard to the improvement of these main roads, that machinery was wanted for dealing with obstructions that at present arose, and that some means might be found for more quickly dealing with cases where land had to be purchased. I am sure I can appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health, who is present, because he, together with certain other Members of the Government, was responsible for a Joint Committee on Unemployment which reported in January, 1921. In the course of that Report, we find these words:
Local authorities can build neither houses nor schools, nor anything else, without money, and the policy at present pursued by the Treasury of hampering borrowing by local authorities is throttling their initiative. We should certainly not maintain that all local authorities showed the enterprise and vigour which the circumstances render necessary; but the restrictions of the Treasury are all direct inducements to supineness, and prevent the energetic local authority from taking effective action. We, therefore, recommend the removal of the Treasury embargo on borrowing by local authorities, and suggest that the Government should put the credit of the State at the services of the local authorities by raising and advancing money to them through the Public Works Loans Board, or otherwise. Lastly, we may here point out that increased grants-in-aid are necessary, and have repeatedly been promised by the Government,
to enable local authorities to play their part in forwarding schemes to meet the present crisis.
I seriously commend those words to those who are responsible for that Report. There is one other point, and that is that, in response to a question that I asked in March last, as to what had been done in regard to the Krupp Works, I received this reply:
The War Office is in possession of detailed information on this subject, and a special Committee of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Germany has been living in the works in question for four years. Nearly all the special apparatus for the production of war material has been destroyed and replaced by machinery for the production of peace products."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1924; cols. 1785–6; Vol. 170.]
Whether we are going to have partial or complete disarmament—and, certainly, we all, in this House, desire a great deal less expenditure on military matters—the time will come when this matter will have to be dealt with, and I want to ask whether it is altogether out of the question for some assistance to be given by the Government to the armament firms in Sheffield, in the way of converting their plant and machinery into peaceful purposes. Sheffield, in pre-War years, was largely an armament centre, and much more so during the years of war, and if there is going to he this much less amount of armaments required, as we all hope, something has to he done in the way of providing for those whom we do not want to see permanently thrown out of employment. I suggest that, seeing what has been done abroad, there is something that certainly might be done here in the same way at the present time.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I have a few words to say in support of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on the question of relief for necessitous areas. He and I come from a district that has been probably harder hit than any other district in the country. It is entirely dependent on one trade, and one trade alone, and that trade is in such a parlous condition that it is unable to afford employment for anything like the number of men who are usually engaged in it. Indeed, in our town, there are between 7,000 and 8,000 people who have been out of work, many of them, for some years, unable to find
employment, and who have lost nearly all hope of ever getting back into work again. We want to appeal to the Government to make some special effort to provide these men with work. It is quite true that they are to some extent provided for by means of unemployment benefit and also by allowances from the guardians, but that is not sufficient. There are great schemes afloat for the establishment of a dock in the River Tees. The North Eastern Railway Company have, I believe, completed a scheme for the establishment of large docks at the mouth of the river, and I understand, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, that £19,000,000 is to be spent by the North Eastern Railway Company during this winter in providing work for unemployment. I would like to ask the Minister in charge whether it is the intention of the Government to press the North Eastern Railway Company to get on with that dock scheme, which is urgently wanted in the district. All the local authorities, I believe, are in favour of it, the shipping interests and the manufacturing interests are in favour of it, and there are in it possibilities of very great development for the Port of Middlesbrough. It is within a very short distance of this great reservoir of unemployed labour, which could be absorbed in the building of these clocks, and you would at least have something to show for the money which has been spent during these times of depression. You would have a huge dock there, instead of having nothing but the degradation of your people to show for the expenditure of millions of money. That, I believe, would be a real benefit to our district; it would be a practical solution of our unemployment problem, and it would take up the labour which cannot find work in its own industry.
I would appeal to the Government to give back some of the money which they have extracted from our industry during recent years. They have taken very large sums by way of taxation, in Income Tax, Super-tax, rates, and also taxes which are charges on industry, such as workmen's compensation insurance payments, both for health and employment. Again, the Excess Profits Duty has taken from people who were engaged in industry very large sums, and we are asking now that some of that money should be returned
into our district. The problem is a very urgent one. If we have such a winter as we had last year—and it looks almost as if the volume of unemployment was going to increase rather than diminish—I venture to say that it is quite likely that the whole of your present system will break down, and that your guardians will be unable to finance the problem which they have before them. Already the ratepayers cannot pay their rates, and the guardians dare not proceed against them, because already, practically, they have proceeded against the whole of the ratepayers in the district. I appeal to the Government to try and give us work rather than doles.

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: I do not think anyone who listened this afternoon to the reply of the Minister of Labour will be wanting in sympathy for him when he discusses the difficulties of dealing with the various strikes that have broken out during the last six months, since he assumed office, but perhaps he will allow me to carry the matter a little further than dealing with disputes when they occur, either in the form of so-called lock-outs or of strikes originating purely from the men's side. The points that interest me in this connection are far more than those. Why do we have these strikes, and is it not possible for this Government to do something towards lessening the possibility of these strikes in the future? At first sight, it would seem an impossible problem to deal with. It is manifest that no employer of labour works his factory for short hours or engages in a lock-out if he can possibly help it, and no men, I believe, engage in strikes because they like strikes. They engage in strikes because they believe that the conditions under which they are labouring are not satisfactory, are not reasonable, and are not giving them a proper return for their labour. It is to that point of view, I want to draw the attention of the House for a few moments. Labour, like everything else in this country to-day, is up for sale. Labour is not getting a bigger return simply and solely because industry in this country cannot afford to pay the wages which labour believes it ought to receive. The problem, therefore, becomes quite simple. Can labour secure a greater share, or not? I do not think it is unreasonable to consider this matter, nor do
I think it is engaging in an inquiry which will bring no practical results.
6.0 P.M.
As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the subject of strikes and to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on the subject of the difficulties of the local bodies, it seemed to me difficult for anyone not to realise how these things are mixed up. The difficulties of the local bodies everyone can understand. What is the use of increasing taxation in providing unremunerative work, which again increases the taxation upon industry and so creates a vicious circle? What, on the other hand, are the difficulties which the Government have to face? They have to face the problem of finding work when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he has already anticipated almost everything that the Government can see for the next five or 10 years ahead. The President of the Board of Trade has, in the last few weeks, set up a Committee which, I trust, will give wonderful results. I have not the slightest intention of suggesting that it will not be valuable, but, in reality, does any Member of this House need the findings of a Committee to tell him what is wrong with industry in this country? We know it without any inquiry.
What are the facts? The population of this country has increased enormously, while, on the other hand, our customers, the whole world over, are poorer. We have not only to get back our pre-War trade, but we have to get a larger trade. We have 1,000,000 men unemployed, in addition to the same number of men at work as was the case before the War. That means that we have to get a larger trade than in pre-War times. It is a truism to say that the only way in which we can get an increase of trade is by peace throughout the world and by improving our trade with foreign countries and with our own Dominions. But when we consider the conditions prevailing in foreign countries, it is useless for us to look at those conditions and then to say that we are likely to get such revivals of trade with them as will bring about changed conditions within the next few months or the next year or two. It is impossible, and we had far better look round and consider the matter from a wider standpoint.
In this country we are about holding that trade with all parts of the world, in which we had in pre-War days, if not a monopoly, at any rate a start over our competitors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day referred to the question of cotton. He said that we were suffering from the fact that our customers were impoverished and could not buy. He also referred to the advantage it would be if the Chinaman would wear a longer shirt. No doubt that would be a great advantage, but in other respects, taking the point of view of the cotton trade, I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our largest customer in the cotton trade is India, and India is not in a state of poverty. She is in a condition of wonderful prosperity, comparatively speaking, from a trade point of view. This is, I think, the fifth or the sixth good monsoon, and it is impossible to say that the people of India are so impoverished that they cannot conduct their ordinary trade. That is not the case. The real fact is that the prices which we have to ask for our goods, owing to the short supply of cotton, are such as to make the demand very much smaller. It is natural that the man who ordinarily buys a piece of cloth at 3d. or 4d. will not consume or increase his usual consumption when the price he has to pay is 2s. or 2s. 6d. That is the case of the cotton trade. It is not there a question of the impoverishment of our customers, but of the fact that the cotton supply of the world is short and, as a consequence, the raw material is so clear that the prices of our goods have to be raised very considerably. The cotton trade, however, is one rather apart.
In most of our other trades we are faced with the fact that the high prices of our goods are not so much due to the high costs of raw materials, but largely to the high cost of labour. That brings me back again to the question, can labour secure a larger share in the results of industry? The mere raising of wages does not alone increase the consumptive power of the country. In the report of a committee which was appointed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1919, of which the present Home Secretary was a member, a resolution was passed drawing attention to the necessity of a rise in wages and
pointing out that it would increase the consumptive power of the country. Everybody agrees with that. The more money a man earns the more he can spend, and, therefore, the greater the consumption. That is true, but it does not go far enough. It is not the slightest use increasing wages unless you increase the earning power of those wages. A very good illustration of this was the position that arose when the slump of 1920–21 occurred. When the slump came, wages were higher and prices were higher than they have ever been. Therefore, high prices and high wages do not necessarily bring about prosperity; quite the contrary. I am not sure that both employers and workmen were not to blame to some extent for the slump. Prices were, perhaps, pushed too high.
The real cause of the slump, however, undoubtedly, was the influx into this country of goods from abroad at cheaper rates than we could manufacture them. The consequence of that was that there was a loss of confidence. Buyers held off, waiting for lower prices, and so the whole thing collapsed. That position arose because we had to compete with countries abroad with labour on a totally different standing. The position of the British working man to-day is this, that he has to face one of two alternatives. Either he has to consider a lower standard of living, longer hours and lower wages and compete with countries where people work longer hours than he does and under conditions which, thank God, he has not had to face yet, or, on the other hand, he has to stand on a higher plane and put himself n a position to get a higher output, better wages and a higher standard of living all round. The problem can be perfectly simply stated.
I was struck with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) the other day when he referred to the influx of foreign goods and the necessity for having a fair wages clause. I do not think he will consider that I am unreasonable when I say that it struck me that he was coming slowly towards the truth. He seemed to be approaching a time when he would say, "It is impossible to go on with this enormous influx of foreign goods." He seemed to me to be very anxious to avoid even the least breath of Protection, and yet to be preaching Protection all the time. I do
not want to preach Protection; I only want to face facts as they are to-day. We cannot get a higher standard so long as we have to compete with the conditions that exist abroad. There are one or two examples of special interest in this connection. The other day we had a very interesting account published in the Press of the condition of the glass workers. The gentleman who represents the glass workers stated that 60 per cent. of the glass workers were out of work, walking the streets, and yet the Government were giving Government contracts for glass abroad which, in his opinion, only enabled the country to make a saving of £13 in every £1,000. That saving was infinitesimal compared with the sums that have to be paid in doles to these very men. These views are put forward from the trade union standpoint and not simply by the representatives of the employers. They point out that these men are unemployed because of this influx of goods from abroad, and that the Government are even supporting that influx of foreign goods.
The mere putting down of relief works is no solution of the unemployment problem. The municipalities, obviously, cannot go on as they are. If they go on increasing their rates, the charges upon industry become heavier and heavier. What I would have liked the Government to do before the recess, if possible, would have been to point out to us not how well the Minister of Labour is dealing with strikes and lock-outs, not how well he is carrying out the Measures of previous Governments in connection either with relief or with overseas trade facilities, or any of those things, but I would have liked him to tell us, looking ahead for two or three years, how the industries of this country can prosper under present conditions. They simply cannot do it. We have to take our stand on one side of the line or on the other. We either must degrade our labour—I use the word deliberately—or else we must, by increased output and improved standard of working, get it to such a position that it can take quite a different place in the world of trade. I do not want to go into the fiscal question, and therefore I will leave it there.
It is no use tinkering away with the problem of the next two months. The problem will be as serious six months
hence as it is to-day. This is a problem with which this Government claimed to be able specially to deal. I am not blaming them that they cannot deal with it, because I never expected them to do so. Whatever Government is in office, the problem with which they are faced is, how is the country going to meet this one outstanding fact, that unless a change in the conditions of industry takes place there will be more closing down of works, more men thrown out of industry and lower rates of wages? Surely in that connection it is not too much to suggest that there might be, as it were, an offer made to the British working man. It might he possible to say to him, "Supposing we do away with the thing that is more dangerous and more objectionable from your point of view even than unemployment itself—namely, the danger of unemployment. Supposing we get rid of that. Supposing we give you a reasonable standard of life. Supposing we give you a policy, whether it be a thrift policy, an all-in policy or whatever it may be called, which gives you reasonable insurance against unemployment, old age and all the rest of it. In return for that, can we not get from you real work, real output, larger output, which will enable us to compete with other countries?"
Cannot we get also an undertaking that for a time, at least, there will be in times of dispute or disagreement a pause during which from both sides arguments may be heard which will prevent the possibility of strikes and lock-outs? The difficulty in regard to strikes and lock-outs is really one of the greatest problems with which the Government has to deal. An industrial dispute of any kind represents not only the loss of working days and the loss of wages, but it means I hat no manufacturer can safely take a contract, because he never knows what is going to happen. There is no security for his output. There is no security for his works. He does not know when he takes a contract whether he will be able to fulfil it, and the result is that our customers are lost. We are suffering very severely from this sort of thing, and it might be got over by a certain amount of good will. The country has arrived at a stage when a great national effort is needed to put these matters right. It is not childish to look at it from that point of view.
A national effort of some kind is needed, and could be made. Just as big an effort is required now as in the War. To get this thing right we have to get both sides to realise the position. We have to get some form of security in the shape of a guarantee for employment such as will ensure that while the worker, on his side, will be certain of a rate of wages for some time ahead, the employer will be equally certain that there will be no disputes of any kind immediately crippling him. For five solid years this country was engaged in destroying everything. It is a much harder job to build up than to pull down. Surely to-day, of all days in the year, there is no one in the country who would not say that, by a national effort, everyone should combine to do away with this constant handicap of industry and give our trade a real chance. If we did that we should remove one of the greatest of the causes which are holding our industry back, and before very long, perhaps, it would be possible for the Government to look at the thing from the broadest point of view, and consider what is in store for us in future, and if that entails varying our fiscal policy I hope that they will even approach the consideration of that matter without any prejudice in their minds.

Lord E. PERCY: We have had a somewhat, perhaps, desultory discussion on various points connected with the Ministry of Labour, and I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I try to get from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry a reply on certain points as to which we on this side feel strongly, and on which we feel just as strongly, after we have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Referring to necessitous areas the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had come to the conclusion there could be no such thing as special grants to necessitous areas with regard to unemployment. He did not explain that that attitude runs directly counter to what has been the attitude of every hon. and right hon. Gentleman on that bench for the last 12 months or two years or even longer. On that point we have a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health which dates back to 1920. But I am not going to criticise the Minister of
Labour for the statement that the Government have decided that there can be no such thing as special grants to necessitous areas. We came to much the same conclusion last year. It is undoubtedly difficult. But when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) a year ago practically announced the same conclusion as the Minister of Labour announced this afternoon, he at any rate did announce a Measure which was some palliative for the immediate necessities of these areas, namely, the increased facilities for obtaining money on loan. But the Government to-day have given no indication that they have in mind any plan for dealing with the problem of the necessitous areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows as well as I do that that problem cannot be left where it is. It cannot be dealt with merely by increased grants, but it is a problem which in its scope is much more circumscribed than is often supposed. My recollection is that if you take the average expenditure of Poor Law authorities in this country per head of the population, necessitated by unemployment, you will find that only about 10 per cent. of the boards of guardians throughout the country are above that average. Within that 10 per cent.—these 60 odd boards of guardians—are all the black spots in the country. Within the 60 are those towns that cannot hope, humanly speaking, so far as we can foresee, to cope with the problem of unemployment in the next generation. We have got to deal with those areas as a special problem, and I wish that the Minister of Labour had given, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary may give us, some indication that the mind of the Government is working on that problem, because it is the worst problem which has to be faced in connection with any reform of the Poor Law. The Minister of Labour has said that there is a difficulty in discriminating between local authorities. Certainly you cannot discriminate between local authorities until you have done one thing—that is, seen that the local authorities are more or less on the same rating and assessment basis, and we have had no indication from the Government of what they are prepared to do about the draft Rating and Valuation Bill
which we left behind us, and which, if we had remained in office, we had intended to introduce, though perhaps not precisely in the same form as that in which it was circulated last year. But we have had no indication that the Government are going to take this first step towards a reform of local government by dealing with rating and valuation.
Now I might say a word as to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the alteration in the percentage rates of grants towards the three classes of unemployment schemes. His policy has this effect, that whereas we last year introduced a now provision for the purpose of encouraging local authorities to get on with revenue-producing schemes, the Government this year are going back, and giving much better terms to non-revenue producing schemes. I am inclined to think that that is a retrograde step. That there should be discrimination against revenue-producing schemes looking at it merely from the point of view of getting employment, is most short-sighted. It is, if I may say so with great respect, a thoroughly short-sighted Treasury view of the matter, and I regret, speaking for myself at any rate, that the effect of the Government proposals should be to increase discrimination against revenue-producing schemes.
I should like to say one or two words about the subject which was referred to at the beginning of the Debate. That is the subject of strikes. Hon. Members must have been struck more than once in the course of our Debates by a feeling as to what would be the view of the man in the street if he could hear certain speeches. That thought crosses my mind often when I am making speeches myself, but I confess it crossed my mind this afternoon when I was listening to the exposition by the Minister of Labour of the functions of his Department in regard to industrial disputes. The right hon. Gentleman made what I can only call a very conservative speech in explaining his methods of dealing with industrial disputes. He stated that it was unnecessary to have any addition to the machinery at his disposal, and that he had all the machinery that was required, and it was also explained that all that machinery did not come to very much after all. I could not help thinking what the man in
the street would think of that speech. What does the Ministry of Labour exist for? What actual results does it produce when dealing with industrial disputes which would not be produced quite as well by the ordinary machinery of the various industries supplemented by that old body, the conciliation department of the Board of Trade? What is the reason for the new Ministry if that is all it can do for industrial disputes?
Then the Minister seemed too complacent as regards the state of industrial disputes. He accentuated the progressive diminution during the last two years in the number of days of work lost owing to industrial disputes, but he forgot that what we are anxious about on this side of the House, and what we think the public outside are anxious about, is not the number of days lost, and not the number of actual disputes, but the nature of the disputes, and the industries in which the disputes occur. I think that the public suspect that in recent months there is an increase in the number of strikes that cannot be ascribed to adequate industrial causes. They are strikes in key services, services on which the community depends, strikes which appear to grow out of very small disputes, from the point of view of conditions of work and wages, and they are disputes in precisely those industries of which political subversive movements would tend to lay hold, as the industries which were to be disturbed.
We were informed in this House by the Home Secretary that influences of this character were at work in connection with the recent dispute in the power stations and the Underground. We have not heard anything more about that. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour what is the view of the Government as to the amount of influence exerted by Communism or by definitely subversive movements having political aims and not merely industrial aims? What part did they play in that recent dispute and in other disputes? What part are they playing to-day, if any—I am making no accusation—in the threatened tie-up in the whole of our electrical services? I am making no criticism and no charge, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has read out a threat of a general tie-up which, at any rate, is
ominous, which is a threat just as much to the public as to the employers, and the public are wondering how far the men who threaten like that have only industrial ends in view, and how far they have political ends in view. That is a matter which the Government are bound to watch and to inform the House about. They are responsible for public security. That is a danger which touches the whole public security of this country.
Let me say one word in regard to the building trade dispute. I shall follow the advice of the Minister of Labour and say nothing which might be construed as criticism of either side in the dispute. But there is one circumstance in regard to the building trade to which it is necessary to refer. It is just as much the fault of the employers as of the workers, I have no doubt Anybody who was responsible for the administration of the Ministry of Health last year knows this—that the output had never been better in the building trade than just before the introduction of the Housing Act of last year. From the moment that the Housing Act of last year came into force the output of the bricklayer tended to fall steadily month by month, and it has been falling ever since. It has been the old state of things in the building trade, worse and not better. Since the negotiations that the Minister of Health had with the building trade, since the terms of the increased subsidy were made known, the position in the industry has been worse and not better. I mention what happened last year so that what I am going to say may have no party point at all.
Whatever the advantages of subsidies may be, they have this very great disadvantage. You do not by a subsidy, by bribing an industry, by making promises to Workmen or employers, increase the self-reliance of that industry or its efficiency as a body which can reconcile the interests of employers and employed. Yon tend to immerse them in a sort of Turkish bath of promises, which must inevitably loosen the whole fibre of the industry. That is one of the difficulties which we are facing now. I hope that the Minister will not go away with the feeling that he has in any way secured the future of the building industry by the promises that he has made to the industry, or by his
attempt to give guarantees to the building industry. Guarantees of that kind, as has been amply proved and is being proved now, tend to sap the sense of responsibility of the industry and to throw it into a condition in which it is now, when, after all that has been done or attempted by various Governments for the last 18 months, the result is that the industry is less in a position to secure the output of houses needed than it was at the beginning, solely because the industry has mismanaged its own affairs.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I do not wish to follow in any detail what the Noble Lord has said about the building industry, except to say that I disagree almost entirely with his analysis of the situation. It is not true that the position of the building industry is worse than it was when the present Minister of Health took office; nor is there any connection whatever between the present dispute in the industry and the housing schemes that are now before Parliament. They are quite unrelated. The present dispute has arisen out of a special set of circumstances with which the Housing Bill has nothing to do. The figures supplied to the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) do not hear the interpretation that he put upon them. Had he cared to take those figures further back to the point when the previous Government was in office, he would hare found months where the cost of houses stood higher than, or as high as, at any point in this present year. One cannot from those figures deduce anything from month to month, because the average prices are the prices of houses in schemes where tenders have been let and the cost has therefore come to the knowledge of the Minister, and if it be, in any particular month, that those figures are swollen by a relatively large number of houses to be built in an area where building costs are high, then the average is more; but if it happen that the bulk of the houses sanctioned that month are in an area where building costs are low the figure then falls. One cannot, therefore, draw any such conclusion as the hon. Member drew.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman state what steps, if any, are to be taken to protect the Government housing schemes in the course of the present strike. Is anything being done? Is the
Minister giving any advice to the local authorities as to the course they should take in connection with their building operations.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have made it perfectly clear that we were not going to intervene in this dispute on either side. In view of the enormous shortage, left largely by our predecessors, a few weeks' dispute, if in the end it leads to reasonableness, may even be worth while. I would like to refer to the question of necessitous areas. The case for necessitous areas has been put very strongly by Members on both sides. There is no Member of the House who does not feel very considerable sympathy with those particular black spots which, during the long trade depression, have suffered very acutely. It is true that many of us on this side of the House believed in some special treatment for necessitous areas. It is an open secret that there has not been a Minister of Health since the War who was not favourably disposed towards some special treatment of that kind, and who, having examined the problem, has not come to the conclusion that the practical difficulties in the way of any formula are almost insuperable. The right hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope) admitted the difficulties of discrimination, and urged that it should be possible for the Government to agree upon a formula which, without laying local authorities open to the temptation of extravagance, would bring relief to areas which were really necessitous. It is not because this Government and previous Governments have not tried that this question has not been solved by a formula. I am convinced that it is quite impossible to devise a formula which would be in the best interests of the necessitous areas. I have seen more than one formula which, when worked out and applied to a particular place, yielded the most fantastic results in the way of special public assistance. It would seem, therefore, that that is not the way to deal with the problem.

Mr. HOPE: Has not the Education formula been applied to necessitous areas, the penny rate, and so on?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is perfectly true, but the President of the Board of Education would know better than I do. It is a relatively unimportant contribution in the total, and I am not at all sure
that everyone would agree that the present formula does absolute justice. It is much more difficult if you are trying to measure what is the poverty of a district—poverty that may be due to one cause or many different causes. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not for want of goodwill that the formula is not forthcoming, but it is that so far no formula has been discovered which would be a workable formula. One reason—I do not say the only reason—is the present rating and valuation system. In fact the question of necessitous areas raises the whole, problem of the relations between national and local finance. Until that problem is overhauled it is quite hopeless to expect that we could deal with necessitous areas as necessitous areas. Therefore, the Government has pursued the policy of extending the grants that it makes to all local authorities in whose area there is unemployment. The announcement made by the Minister of Labour will be of very substantial assistance to local authorities, more particularly when that is reinforced by the new rates of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. While those benefits will not relieve the municipalities they will relieve the rates levied by the boards of guardians, and, therefore, will relieve the local ratepayer.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) criticises the Government for doing nothing about revenue-producing services. It is true that the late Government did something to improve the terms offered to local authorities in respect of revenue-producing services; they increased the period during which assistance would be given, from five to 15 years, and in doing so in a sense gave an advantage to local authorities who were establishing revenue-producing services. The Noble Lord attempted to give the House the impression that the effect of our readjustment would be to put an inducement before local authorities in the direction of non-revenue-producing services. I doubt whether that is so. Moreover, I think it is right that there should be a distinction made between revenue-producing services and non-revenue-producing services, because, in fact, the assistance which is at present being given to local authorities in respect of revenue-producing services seems to be quite sufficient to insure them against loss until
those services are producing a revenue. Therefore, proposals are made for dealing with non-revenue-producing services. The increase in the rate of assistance from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund charges means that now the Government contribution amounts to over 50 per cent. of the cost of such schemes. Therefore, we are within the same range of State grants as is being made by the Minister of Health and by the President of the Board of Education for other services.
As I said, the new grants for non-revenue producing services will amount to rather over 50 per cent, of the total cost of the schemes. This proposal will assist necessitous areas in common with all other areas, not merely because of the assistance they will derive themselves directly, but because of the practice of the Unemployment Grants Committee in approving schemes even in areas where unemployment is relatively light, where as a result of the operation of those schemes and of orders being placed, employment will be forthcoming in those areas where unemployment is serious. In that way, distressed areas get an additional benefit, because they reap the advantages of the schemes put into operation in other places. I am sure we never imagined that the proposals made to-day would be received with enthusiasm, because the representatives of the necessitous areas will continue to ask for more, but I think, when hon. Members examine these proposals together with the additional help forthcoming to local authorities from the Unemployment Insurance scheme, they will find we have made a substantial contribution towards assisting local authorities and particularly those local authorities in areas where depression exists.

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: On 2nd May, 1923, I proposed the following Motion
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1923; col. 1552, Vol. 163.]
There were two things rather remarkable about that Resolution. The first was that
it had the distinction of being seconded by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Webb), now the President of the Board of Trade, who was then a private Member. Secondly, it was carried by a unanimous vote of the House. When a Labour Government came into power I had some reason to expect, not that they would take up this question immediately, which would be rather an unreasonable expectation considering all the responsibility which is upon them, but that I would be addressing a sympathetic tribunal. There are some Members of the Government who, are, either by birth or descent, Irish. There are, I am glad to say, upon the benches above the Gangway many Members who are Irish by birth or descent. There are many Scottish Members in the Labour party. I do not anticipate there is a single Member for Scotland who will raise any objection to the application to England of the admirable, tolerant and generous system which has succeeded so wonderfully in Scotland. But Governments have to be pressed. The demands on their time are so large that, naturally, the demands which are pressed most are acceded to first.
The dimensions of this question are much larger than is realised by those who do not, like myself, keep in constant touch with the Irish citizens of Great Britain. That is a much larger body of people than is supposed. I do not think I exaggerate when I say it amounts to about 2,000,000 of the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales. Theirs is a curious, an interesting, and, I think, a tragic history. In the first place, these 2,000,000 Irish citizens of Great Britain came here in the exodus from Ireland which followed the great famine. It is one of the tragic stories of the Irish exodus, though not tragic perhaps in the same degree as the exodus to the United States, because the people who came to Liverpool had not the long sea voyage in the strange vessels which went to America in that period. I remember hearing a man of Irish descent at a dinner which was given to me at Grand Rapids, in the State of Michigan, declaring that his father, mother, and three sisters had started for America in an emigrant vessel with 400 Irish emigrants on board, and 300 out of the 400, including this man's three sisters, were dead before the vessel arrived in America. Certainly, there were many
painful experiences in connection with this exodus of more than 5,000,000 from Ireland, which left more Irish outside the shores of Ireland than inside. In the city of Glasgow, to which some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway belong, there was a great immigration of Irish men and women, not without some suffering to the people of Glasgow themselves. There is a remarkable passage in one of the essays of Thomas Carlyle, in which, in his own grim fashion, he says that people denied sisterhood to an Irish woman who came to Glasgow, but she established her sisterhood by bringing into Glasgow the infection of cholera or the plague which resulted in the deaths of many Glasgow people. That Irish exodus gave Carlyle some of his most brilliant and striking pages. In one passage he says:
The Irish giant, named of despair, is advancing upon London itself. I notice him in Piccadilly, blue-visaged, thatched in rags, a blue child on each arm; hunger-driven, wide-mouthed, seeking whom he may devour.
The reason I use that is to indicate the connection between the history of that immense exodus to Great Britain from Ireland and the history of this question of the schools. Ragged and hungry as they were, these Irish workers immediately gave out of their small wage two subscriptions—the first to build a chapel of their faith, and the second to build a school of their faith, and through a period of three-quarters of a century these Irish immigrants have, out of their small wages, contributed largely to the support of their schools. I never heard an education Debate in this House in which high tribute was not paid to the spirit of devotion to their creed and their convictions and the self-sacrifice of the Irish people in holding by their schools as well as by their chapels, and I am sure the appeal of their self-sacrifice exists as strong to-day as ever before. I have known men in Liverpool, priests and laymen, who went out every Sunday to collect subscriptions for building schools. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has done it himself, and I am sure his father and mother did it before him. He will remember a very fine Irish citizen, lately deceased, Mr. John O'Shea, who was personally a tee-totaller, but who went every Sunday to every public-house in my Division to
raise subscriptions for these schools. I have known several priests who, every Sunday for years, went about raising these subscriptions.
That was all very well, as long as all the schools had to do the same thing, but a series of Education Acts have been brought into existence producing the curious result that while schools called "provided schools" have been built at the expense of the rates and the ratepayers, Catholics have to pay for the building of their own schools. I wish to indicate how this works out, because I believe that any Englishman, whatever his creed or party, who knows the spacious dimensions of this problem will immediately declare that it should be solved in a satisfactory way. I have seen calculations that in the three-quarters of a century, during which there was this large body of Irish immigrants in Liverpool, they have spent no less than £800,000 on this work, and I myself have taken a small share in raising some £40,000 within the last 10 or 15 years, mainly from my own constituents. I put it to any rational and humane man: is it right that these poor people, nearly all slum dwellers, nearly all more or less of unskilled labour, nearly all only just able by their daily work to get their daily food, should out of their tiny resources subscribe £40,000 to build schools in order that the successful and prosperous cotton spinner and cotton broker or the successful and prosperous shipowner should be relieved of the responsibility for that £40,000 which comes from the pockets of the poor in the slums?

Sir GERALD HOHLER: On a point of Order. Is it in order on the Appropriation Bill to introduce a question which would involve the raising of money?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it be a question of a grant which can be given under the existing law, the right hon. Gentleman is in order.

Sir G. HOHLER: I contend that no grant can be given under the existing law for the purpose of building a Roman Catholic school or a Church of England school or a Wesleyan school.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not discuss matters which require legislation, but I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring forward some pro-
posal which was within the powers of the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it is within your recollection, Sir, that in 1907, without legislation, the Government gave grants through the Estimates for the building of schools, and what they did then they can do now. Mr. McKenna himself proposed giving grants through the Estimates to certain schools, and they were given through the Estimates.

Mr. O'CONNOR: In addition to that, may I say that the Secretary for Scotland gave several grants through administration for increasing the salaries of the teachers in non-provided schools.

Sir G. HOHLER: I submit that the salaries of teachers are on a different basis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) refers to something which happened in 1907. Of course, I was not in the House then, but I notice that the right hon. Gentleman was careful to use the word "schools," and he gave us no figure. Is it not well known that, without legislation, no grant can be made for the building of non-provided schools?

7.0 P.M.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not a fact that in 1907 Mr. McKenna, when President of the Board of Education, introduced an Estimate for doing a thing which was held to be in contravention of an earlier Statute, but he contended, successfully, that the Estimate was tantamount to a Statute when passed, and it was for building schools.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only ask my right hon. Friend to confine himself to suggestions which are possible without legislation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am surprised the hon. Member should seek to deprive me of the chance of bringing forward the claims of 2,000,000 of my fellow-country-men. It is not the spirit of consideration for political opponents that I would have expected from an hon. Gentleman on the other side. There was a Bill introduced a few years ago by the then Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Munro, who is now a high judicial official. I do not think that any body would deny that the Protestantism of Scotland is quite as robust as the Protestantism of England.
I would go against the historic reputation of Scotland if I were to say they were more lavish in the expenditure of either private or public money than men of other nationalities. In spite of the robustness of their Protestantism, I must compliment my Scottish friends by saying that they have given examples to the whole world, including Englishmen, in the liberality and generosity with which they have always been ready to treat Catholics in their country. A Bill was brought in—

Mr. SPEAKER: There the right hon. Gentleman is rather giving himself away. He is showing me that it is a matter of legislation. I would invite him to confine himself to any suggestions which he may have that the Minister could carry out without legislation.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am not so well acquainted, but I understand there are building grants on which the Government can draw if they so please to right this difficulty. However the purpose for which I intended to bring this case before the House, which I think is a hard case, is so much limited by the kindly and courteous intervention of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that I will go on to another point. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education, will help me in this project which I am about to explain. The worst difficulty of the position of the Irish poor, as most of them in these Catholic schools are the Irish poor, is that when they end their schooling at 14 years of age they have to go into what we call blind-alley employments. Every man who is acquainted with the Irish people in Great Britain knows that is the case. To go into that employment in England and Scotland is not the same as in America. In America many millionaires have begun by selling newspapers in the streets. Except they have very remarkable qualities of energy and ability, the boy or girl who begins in a blind-alley employment remains a serf to the end of their days. I will give a case. A lady, the daughter of a friend of mine, a teacher in a convent school, during the War was approached by a little boy of 12 or 14 years of age. This boy began to speak to the teacher about submarines which was a very dominant question with most of us. The teacher was so struck with the extraordinary knowledge of this boy of a recondite subject like the sub-
marine that she asked him to give a lecture on it to his class, which he did. A boy like that shows a streak of genius, and under a proper educational system this manifestation of peculiar aptitude would be encouraged and that boy would be helped on, instead of which he has to go into a blind-alley employment. Why is this?
There is even a more tragic case. Some of these Irish boys and girls win scholarships of £20. They have to give up the scholarship, because £20 is not enough to do their share towards helping their parents and the younger boys and girls of the family. That is a scandalous state of affairs. I hope, if time and strength remain to me and if I fail with the Government here, to make an appeal to the men and women of my race in the United States to give me a fund by which I will be able to take out of the schools at 14 some scores, if not hundreds, of Irish boys and girls, and give them scholarships, taking them on to 18 and giving them a chance of creating a new generation of Irish in Great Britain rather than remaining in the unskilled trades as they do to-day. It is perfectly plain that so long as there is imposed upon these poor Irish people this tremendous burden so long will the fund be incomplete for such a purpose. If hon. Members could imagine the vast sums of money which have been spent on building schools being devoted to giving scholarships they could see the gigantic work which we might have done for these poor people. I denounce this whole system as a social as well as a religious inequality; a discrimination against the people who are poor and are asked to pay more than the rich. I feel I can confidently appeal to that spirit of fairplay and toleration which every true Britisher holds to remedy these grievances and not to violate those great principles of toleration which are at once the glory and the strength of Ireland.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. Trevelyan): The House is always delighted to hear my right hon. Friend and to hear something of the charm of a great generation of Irish debaters and the experience of the elder statesmen. We have had to-day a very skilful presentment of his case. It sounds, perhaps, a very innocent proposal. I wish it were quite as simple. I always find that when education and re-
ligion come up against each other in England it is never quite simple. He wishes that the State should give public grants for building denominational schools. I am afraid that if I did give grants for denominational schools they would thereby cease to be denominational. That is the difficulty. One thing is quite certain. If I could do it now, whether it is desirable and whether it is just or not, it would quite certainly wreck the present system. It would quite certainly wreck the settlement of 1902. After all, on what is that system based? It is based on a differentiation between provided and non-provided schools. Non-provided means that they are provided, not by the State. In virtue of that, certain advantages are accorded to non-provided schools, certain advantages of immunity from public control. I said a few days ago that my personal desire was to maintain the present atmosphere of calm in the education world which exists at the present time. No good will be done to the cause of education if that calm is broken and if religious controversies again enter into the sphere of education.
I propose with the strictest fairness to administer the system which exists at present under the settlement of 1902. Of course, the settlement of 1902 is a compromise. Everyone knows that. In the nature of things, a compromise cannot entirely please anybody. It cannot satisfy the sense of justice of any party. The compromise does not satisfy my right hon. Friend. If I were to begin giving by any means under my executive power, if it exists, grants to non-provided schools, immediately large numbers of my hon. and right hon. Friends who sit around my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) would be up in arms declaring that it was a breach of the principles on which a sort of agreement had been come to in 1902. Immediately the whole of the religious controversies would flame to light again, and then our present hopes of going on together to an improvement in education which is likely to affect the education of those very slum children for whom my right hon. Friend has been pleading to-day would diminish. It is because I do not believe that if this religious controversy is again aroused they are going to profit that I would ask
my right hon. Friend not to press too much his views at the present time. I greatly doubt whether very many friends of non-provided schools want this particular controversy re-raised. I very greatly doubt that many of them seriously ask for public money to be given for the building of non-provided schools.
I had a deputation from members of a Catholic body the other day. I do not say that they do not wish for the things that the right hon. Gentleman has out forward. Many do wish them, but know they cannot get them in the light of public interest. That Catholic deputation did not suggest these things I think, because they knew it was really not a politic thing to bring them up at the present time. I am trying to administer the Act fairly, and the Catholic community can be assured of fair treatment from me. I have already given my assent to the building of four or five Catholic schools, for some of which they were unable to get sanction previously. The only reason why I implore my right hon. Friend not to press his views at the present moment is that this is not a time at which we should try to change the system under which we are working. We all perfectly well know that education will cease to be popular and religious passion will take its place if we try to bring about such a change. I trust my right hon. Friend will carry out his project for getting money for scholarships and maintenance for the Irish poor. The State will help him. I have given some indication that the Government are ready to spend more money on scholarships and maintenance, and this money will go to his people as well as to those of purely English breed.

Mr. FERGUSON: Not in my division.

Mr. TREVELYAN: The Scottish Department is not under discussion at the moment, and the English, Welsh and Irish who live in this country will all, I hope, profit by the greater liberality of the Government and of the local education authorities in giving the maintenance grants which are now permissible.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Do these grants apply to primary and secondary schools, and non-provided and provided schools alike?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The maintenance grants are made by the local authorities
for all children under their care. There is no discrimination between provided and non-provided schools, and, therefore, children of Irish descent, living in the poorer districts, will benefit by the increased activity of the education authorities and the larger grants that are to be made. I have the greatest sympathy with what my right hon. Friend has stated, but I sincerely hope that we are not again going to have religious controversy imported into our education discussions in this House.

Lord E. PERCY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the new schools, the building of which he has sanctioned? I think there were about 17 in all which were in dispute?

Mr. TREVELYAN: Among the five sanctioned were Bethnal Green, Charlton, Camberwell and Denaby Main. They are all primary schools.

CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION, CARFIN.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I am sure we have all heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the President of the Board of Education that he will administer the existing law with the strictest impartiality. At times we have had reason to complain that some of our schools are not treated quite with that strict impartiality which we think they deserve. I wish to turn to another point of special interest to Catholics, particularly those in Scotland, and should apologise to the House for venturing to intrude upon Scottish affairs when I do not understand the Scottish language very well. I wish to refer to a Catholic procession at Carlin, which was interfered with by the police authorities on 22nd June this year. Carfin is a village of which 75 per cent. of the inhabitants are Catholics. It has had a procession on the Sunday after Corpus Christi during the last five years. Until three years ago the processions were purely local and attracted no particular attention except in the locality. But during the miners' strike three years ago the miners who were unemployed occupied themselves in building a shrine in imitation of the one at Lourdes, and in order to make it more like the latter they made an artificial spring at the foot of the statue and laid on water. Then there were a number of alleged miracles among people who made
pilgrimages to the grotto. Personally, I confess my faith in miracles in general and in those at Carfin in particular, but in order to avoid controversy I am speaking of them as "alleged" miracles. In consequence of these alleged miracles, enormous crowds of people visited the shrine from all parts of Scotland, and, on the day of this procession last year there were probably 50,000 or 60,000 people in this small village.
The Catholic majority in Carfin have always been on the very best terms with their neighbours who are non-Catholic. There never has been any disturbance or disagreeable incidents. They have also been on the best terms with the police, who have allowed them to organise their procession, and nothing has ever taken place to cause any disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. But a few days before the date of the procession this year the chief constable called on the priest and informed him that if the procession took place, and if he and other priests took part in it, they would be indicted under the Catholic Emancipation Act, 1829. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that this procession should have been singled out for treatment under an obsolete Act. We have had many sorts of processions of late years, processions of suffragettes, of the unemployed, of Communists, and of Salvation Army and other denominations, but the only one to be interfered with is a Catholic procession in this village, the population of which is almost entirely Catholic, and that was interfered with under an obsolete Act.
The police stated that they were acting under instructions, and my object in raising the question to day is to discover on whose instructions they were acting. I should like to remind the House that on the same day on which this procession was to have taken place, but was not allowed to owing to the action of the police, there were great processions of the same character all over England, and notably in London, Sheffield, Chatham and Chesterfield. In addition to Catholic processions, there were also processions organised by the Church of England. There was one which took place at the back of my house here in London, and it was organised by a Church of England parish in the neighbourhood. I read in the Press a fortnight ago that
in a certain mining village in Durham there was a procession in honour of Lenin, and the men taking part in it carried banners bearing Lenin's portrait. When the miners' wives found out in whose honour the procession was taking place they assaulted the persons carrying the banners, and in this particular case the police came to their assistance, enabled the procession to proceed, the ladies who disagreed with the objects of it were driven off. My compliant against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland is that when I have raised this question in the House before he has always returned evasive replies, and, further than that, he has not, so far as I know, taken any public action to ensure that these things should be stopped. I am not in any way attempting to make political capital out of this matter. The first time I asked my question the right hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing about the incident, but would make inquiry. Yet I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Ferguson) that he had told the right hon. Gentleman four weeks beforehand that he was going to stop this particular procession. The second occasion on which I asked the question the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was purely a question of traffic. As I have pointed out to the House, a very large number of processions were allowed on the same day in great centres like London and Sheffield, and, if the traffic could be controlled in those centres, it surely could have been controlled in a village like Carfin without the authorities falling back on the Act of 1829. The third time the right hon. Gentleman was questioned he said that the police had acted on their own responsibility. But, as a matter of fact, they have stated throughout most emphatically that they were acting under orders.
I should like to add that the promoters of the procession and the population of Carfin have no complaint to make against the police; they are always perfectly courteous and regretted the action that they were obliged to take. They also stated that they were acting under instructions. The Tight hon. Gentleman seems to know less about this matter than anybody else, and I hope that as one result of raising this question this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman
will express in the most forcible terms his disapproval of what has taken place. It does seem extraordinary that under a Labour Government such an incident as this should have taken place. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could have expressed a wish that such incidents should not take place under a Government which stands for religious toleration, and which, I believe, sincerely upholds the cause of religious toleration in all parts of this Kingdom.
Before sitting down, I should like to make one or two remarks with regard to the interjections made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Ferguson) when I brought this matter up. After I had raised the matter in the House by question and answer, I received a letter from the Protestant Press Bureau, which said I had no sense of humour. I did not reply to that letter, because I think it is very difficult for anyone to appraise the value of his own sense of humour, and so I thought it better to leave the letter unanswered. But I can say I have a very high sense of the humour of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is, if I may put it in that way, really the villain of this piece. I fell sure he will not object to my referring to him in that sense, but he was the common informer who laid the information under which this indictment was threatened, and, therefore, he has, I think, some little responsibility to defend himself for the action that he took. The truth of the matter is that my hon. Friend is out of touch with the spirit of the times. He wants to go back to the 16th and 17th centuries. If I might venture to give a personal example to illustrate the difference in the sentiment of the present time, and the sentiment to which my hon. Friend wishes to go back, I would say this: I stand here as a Catholic of Catholics, but I have been sent here by 30,000 of my fellow citizens in Lancashire to represent them, and, certainly, not more than one-eighth belong to my religion. That is the spirit of the present time. To continue the example. In the 16th and 17th centuries two of my forefathers died in prison, and one was born in prison, for their devotion to the Catholic faith. That is the spirit of the age to which my hon. Friend wants to go back.
He made one or two definite observations by way of interjection. He stated first that these processions were illegal. That matter, I think, was finally disposed of by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congrees in 1908. After various attempts to insinuate that the procession was illegal, the Prime Minister of the day was obliged to go back on that ground entirely, and to request the Archbishop of Westminster not to hold a procession. It was in consequence of the request of the Prime Minister, and not in consequence of any prohibition, that that procession was not held. In a letter from the Archbishop of Westminster to the Prime Minister at that time, Cardinal Bourne said:
The Acts and Declarations to which the Protestant societies "—
certain societies which approached the Prime Minister to get the procession stopped—
have called attention have never been invoked within my memory. They are universally regarded as a dead letter, and they are equally applicable to many acts which I and my colleagues perform publicly, and intend to perform publicly, over and over again throughout the year.
That statement has never been contradicted, and the day after the procession was stopped, in deference to the wishes of the Prime Minister, the "Times," "Daily Telegraph." "Standard," "Daily Chronicle," "Pall Mall," and afterwards "Truth," and many other papers, had leading articles reprobating the attitude of the then Government, and declaring that the time had come for the Acts, which enabled people to allege illegality even if they could not prove it, should be swept from the Statute Book.
The final point with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell is this: He declared in this House that the priest at Carfin should be prosecuted for fraudulently selling water. I may, perhaps, explain to the House that the water of the spring at Motherwell is Glasgow Corporation water, which is laid on by an ordinary pipe, and is made to come up in the spring by means of an ordinary tap, so that if the priest was clever enough to sell this water at 5s. a bottle, as my hon. Friend declared, I think he should be congratulated rather than condemned. But if the hon. Gentleman
means that this priest, or any other priest, sold water that was alleged to be blessed, or alleged to be holy water, then I offer him this challenge. If he can prove that any priest in England or Scotland, or anywhere else, sold water alleged to be blessed, or holy water, then I will pay as many pounds to the Motherwell Infirmary as pence have been paid for the water. While such Acts are on the Statute Book, and while such persons as my hon. Friend hold the views they do, it is really not safe for Catholics to be at large in this country. The situation is really like throwing a razor among a crowd of babies, and expecting that nobody will be hurt. I do appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to tell us to-night that the Government will support the Bill I am introducing to-morrow to remove these disabilities once and for all from the Statute Book.

Mr. FERGUSON: As I am the defender, as my hon. Friend has put it, I will not seek to raise any strife or ill-feeling so far as I can avoid it, but I want to say, first, it is not the Glasgow water, but really the County of Lanark water. Another thing I want to point out is that I did not say I told the Secretary for Scotland a month before that I was stopping the procession. What I did say was that I had seen the Secretary for Scotland, and had sounded him on the matter, and he gave me every indication that he was not going to stop it, much to my surprise When he gave me an indication that he would not stop it, then, I admit, I took steps to see it was stopped. The history of the matter is this. In Motherwell, which is known all over Britain for the religious controversy that took place there, a Roman Catholic bishop named Bishop Graham began the controversy. He went to Motherwell and hired a hall. The invitation was to Protestants only, and he told them that their religion was no better than that of the "heathen Chinee," and that the only channel through which salvation could come was through the Roman Catholic Church. There is toleration for you! That bishop was just newly arrived from the Pope, immediately after ho got his promotion. That, naturally, set the Protestants of Motherwell into a flame, and the religious controversy was carried on for some years. This procession through Motherwell was deliberately
attempted, even in the midst of the heat that had been engendered, and, if held, would certainly have resulted in riot, and probably the loss of lives. Carfin is exactly half a mile outside the border.
It was Cromwell, the greatest man that England ever produced, who said that Home never would advance an inch unless it was through Protestants who sat in the House, and men who made a profession of religion. I am certain to-day we shall sec them on their feet justifying this procession in Carfin. Our hon. Friend here is helpless; the Church of Rome is helpless, and it is only by the help the hon. Member is going to get to-day from Protestants that they will make any progress at all in this business. Take the material side of it. They go into Carfin, and, if they get established there, then it becomes the law all over Scotland. There are some here, I know, who had a big majority in Scotland last time, but if they support this they will not get back, and I will see that they do not get back. I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Scotland and England are entirely different, and the vast majority of Scotsmen will never tolerate what is tolerated in England. They have a better knowledge of the Bible, and they know that they were commanded, not only not to tolerate these statues and images, but to take them and smash them in pieces, lest they should be captivated and led astray by them, as they are in England through tolerating these images, and statues that have been erected, so that there is scarcely a paper wall between the High Church of England and the Church of Rome to-day.
The hon. Member challenged me about the payment for the water. I can prove that from the beginning they were charging for the water, until we showed them up, and then here is the trick they played, which was worse than charging. Everyone has to put his money into a box, which is beside the county water, and a piece of paper on which has to be written the name and what particular blessing, or what it is, he wants. This House can understand, therefore, that these poor people, who cannot pay their rent, and cannot pay the grocer, the tailor, or the butcher, put into that box what ought to go to pay the rent, the butcher and the grocer. Even my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will bear me out as to two
cases in which he was interested. The rent was 2s. 10d. a week in one case, and 4s. 6d. in the other.

Mr SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the point. I understood the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) was that, owing to Government orders, a certain procession had been permitted.

Mr. FERGUSON: Yes, the law has never been repealed. The law stands there, and what my hon. Friend has asked the Secretary for Scotland to do is to break through that law, and to make himself a lawless person in breaking through. What my hon. Friend proposes, in bringing forward his Bill, is that the Scottish Members here will show their hands in support of it, and that we in Scotland shall know exactly where they stand. That is what we want. We will fight this matter at the next Election, and they will realise it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: At the risk of losing my seat at the next Election I respond to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Ferguson) to say that I stand for fair consideration of all sorts of processions. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this matter has stated what to me appeared to be reasonable facts, and I nave confidence that the Secretary for Scotland will adjudicate on this question as it deserves. What I do want to say is, in respect to my colleagues and myself who come from some of the Scottish constituencies which are largely constituted of people who belong to the Roman Catholic body, that I am satisfied of this; that in our constituencies there is no such thing as trouble on this account. Every consideration is shown to those passing through the thoroughfares, and those in processional order, and both live on the best terms of amity, and we are able to be of service the one to the other. What was said in respect to all this by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool is, in my judgment, quite correct.
My anxiety is that we should avoid just the sort of thing which happens in the West of Scotland at the instigation of some like the hon. Member for Mother-well. So far as Ireland is concerned, one
has only to be in some parts to see the prejudice which arises and which is applicable to both sides. When I was in the city of Belfast on one occasion the very cross which I am wearing on my watch-chain was taken to represent that I belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. In the public thoroughfare it was demanded of me that I should give an explanation. As a Scotsman, I promptly refused to do. I was asked to say that I would make no further refer-once to the churches on the particular question that I specialise in and which was referred to by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. He said something about collections going on in public houses for education, but I have never considered that public houses have ever assisted any kind of religion. I was asked to give an explanation, in the streets of Belfast, and I was fighting a great combat under their conception that I was a, Roman Catholic. Then I said: "Now I know what the prejudice is of the Orangemen of Belfast by their determination not to listen to a man because he is wearing the symbol of the Cross of Christ, whose religion is represented by all Christian bodies." What I am asking for here is, that the police shall carry on in the fashion which is done in other parts of the country with all types of processions, whether they be Communist or whatever they may be—that if there is trouble apprehended, arising from public processions, that the police shall be in attendance to see that order is kept. I do maintain that, in the highest interests of the nation, we shall do everything to calm down religious animosity and to suppress the fires of religious bigotry. Instead of having these warring religious factions, we should give some evidence that we have a religion, and not act like savages.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I have had two questions put to me in the course of this Debate. On a previous occasion I tried apparently unsuccessfully to point out who was responsible for the Corpus Christi procession In respect to the Bill mentioned, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. Blundell) asked if the Government are prepared to give the necessary time to carry through that Bill, which the hon. Gentleman hopes to intro-
duce to-morrow. As to the first question, from information I have received I understand that the Corpus Christi procession at Carfin has been held for some considerable number of years, but up till 1921 the procession had always been held within the church grounds. Since 1921 and up till last year, the procession has passed along the public road. During these two years, 1921–22, the procession consisted simply of the members of the church and caused no inconvenience to the traffic in any shape or form. In 1923 the procession was largely attended. It was estimated, according to information passed on to me, that about 30,000 people were present. There was a serious interruption of the traffic owing to the fact that large numbers of those taking part knelt down on both sides of the public road during the proceedings. Complaints came to the police from different parties. I may say that amongst the names that came in of those who complained there was not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. I have never seen his name in any list.
Complaints came in that the traffic had been held up for as long a period as an hour and a half. In February, 1924, the local superintendent of police who had received a complaint about the matter in 1923, called on Father Taylor, the priest-in-charge of Carfin, in order to ascertain if a public procession was to be held this year. In the course of that interview the superintendent pointed out that Roman Catholic processions were illegal under Section 26 of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 if they involved celebrations of religious rites or if religious habits were worn by the clergymen taking part. Father Taylor did not say whether the procession would or would not take place this year when the superintendent called, and this is the answer to the question of my hon. Friend—the superintendent acted entirely on his own initiative in the statement that he made to Father Taylor. The chief constable knew nothing of the matter until the superintendent reported to him in May the intention of Father Taylor to proceed with the procession.
The chief constable then in turn discussed the matter with Father Taylor and Dean McAvoy. At this interview the chief constable did not refer to the Act of 1829. He based his objections to
a public procession to the interruption of the traffic which had been caused in 1923. After a very brief interval Father Taylor agreed to abandon the public procession. On reconsideration, Father Taylor applied for and obtained a permit which the county council were authorised to grant under the bye-laws for regulating the assembling or procession of bands on the highway or in the streets of the county. I know nothing of the circumstances under which the permit was granted, but it may be pointed out that the permit can only authorise a procession otherwise legal. Hearing that the public procession was to proceed, the chief constable instructed the superintendent to see Father Taylor and to inform him that if he went on with the procession a report would be made to the Crown authorities. The superintendent was also instructed to obtain the names of the priests and monks who would take part in the procession, so that they would not require to interfere with the procession while it was in progress. Father Taylor thereupon said that the procession in the public road would not take place: it would be abandoned and would take place within the church and Grotto Grounds.
While I have no personal acquaintance with Father Taylor I should like to bear testimony to the good feeling, tact and commonsense that have been displayed by him throughout the whole matter'. Neither the Lord Advocate nor myself had any knowledge of the matter until more than a week after the procession had taken place, when my attention was called to the matter by the hon. Member for the Bothwell Division (Mr. J. Robertson), in whose constituency Carfin is situated. He informed me that Father Taylor had been in touch with him, and had told him that he wanted my hon. Friend, the representative of the Division, to discuss this matter with him. That was the first I heard of it. The Lord Advocate heard of it when I reported to him a day or two later what had been told me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell. The second point is with regard to the complaint that the penal provisions in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 are unjust and out of date. I think there is little doubt that in the minds of a considerable section of the community there
is not now any sympathy with provisions of that sort. Their repeal, however, is a matter for Parliament, and for the people of the country generally. At the present moment it would not be possible for me to give a pledge that the Government will give facilities for the passage of the Bill to which reference has been made.
8.0 P.M.
I am not empowered to respond to such an appeal as that of the hon. Gentleman, especially in view of the heavy legislative programme already in hand. So far as my personal attitude is concerned—and I want to say quite frankly, and in speaking now, as I propose to do, I am speaking for myself alone—I am prepared to give to the Roman Catholic sections of the community the same fair play as I claim for myself—nothing more and nothing less—and I have endeavoured, and intend to continue as long as I am in the position of Secretary for Scotland, to hold the balance fair between all sections of the community.

Mr. SEXTON: I shall endeavour to avoid offending the susceptibilities of anyone on the opposite side. I intend to leave the question of processions severely alone if I can, but I do not admit that the opening up of this question will increase religious differences. I am an Irish-Catholic. We fought this question out years ago in the Labour party at the Trade Union Congress and I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, unintentionally, he has grossly exaggerated the spread of these religious differences amongst the working classes. He is very much mistaken if he thinks the giving of plain, common justice to any denomination will increase religious differences amongst the working classes. I claim for the Labour party that they have been a real solid instrument in removing religious differences for the past 20 or 25 years. We have lately had returned to the House two Members from Liverpool who sit on these benches. I remember the time in 1906 when I fought the same constituency, and my life was not safe because I happened to belong to a denomination to which most of the electors were opposed. Yet, under the growing influence of the Labour party, one of these constituencies has returned a Catholic where at that time no Catholic would have had a
chance. I remember a humorous incident that happened in Londonderry. The permission of the Mayor, who happened to be a Catholic, had to be obtained to hold a procession round Derry Walls, and he advised them, in view of the religious differences at that time, 15 years ago, to hold the procession outside the city, and they agreed. When they went back to get their drum—an Orange procession without a drum is a blank failure—they found that someone had kicked in the head of the drum. They went to the Irish National League, who lent them their drum on the condition that after their celebration they left it at a certain pub, and they said, "We will be waiting for you." That is the spirit that used to exist, but that is gradually dying away. I want to submit that the plea of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) is a sound one. The Irish Catholics are fined doubly. They have to pay for the provided schools and for their own schools as well. It is not unfair to ask that, even in the present state of the law, some assistance should be given them. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) may be reassured by the fact that contributions from the pub are better spent on building schools than in the pub. I do not cave of what nationality a man is or at what shrine he worships. The religious feeling of any country is the greatest national asset it can have.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think I was personally referred to by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Ferguson) when he said that certain Members who had come here with very large majorities, if they took up a certain side on this question, would not return to the House. I am not given to challenging or, I hope, to boasting, but I am prepared to-morrow to go back to my Division and fight him on this issue.

Mr. FERGUSON: Come to my Division and fight me.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am comparatively new in politics but I would fight the hon. Member to-morrow on this issue and defeat him in my Division by at least two votes to one. Mine is not a Catholic Division but it is a sensible Division. I was born in the Protestant faith and I still retain it and I am not ashamed of it. I remember, in my school days, on St. Patrick's day we used to cut sticks and
our function seemed to be to smash as many heads as we could. In Glasgow even the children have got beyond that stage and what is not good enough for children ought to be contemptible for grown men. I think the answer of the Secretary for Scotland was evasive. It was not intentional, but that is what it appeared to convey to me. The police say the reason for stopping this is because of the traffic. The people who have to do with the traffic are the people who grant the permits. In Glasgow, when we held a Labour or Socialist demonstration, we have to ask permission from the magistrates, and they are the body who have to decide whether we are going to cause congestion or hold up traffic. If they grant the permit it is equivalent to saying the procession will not interfere with the normal traffic of the town. Here the county council, which is responsible for the maintenance of good government, say: "We are granting you a permit. It will not interfere with the traffic. It will not annoy the rest of the city." They grant it, and when the chief constable could not get the county council to say it would interfere with the traffic he hauled out an old obsolete Act as his last defence. The Act ought to be administered in Soot-land as it is in every other part of the country. On 12th July, in my native city, the Orange people demonstrated. They were decent, well-dressed, well-behaved people, and if the authorities in Glasgow, or the Secretary for Scotland, had hauled out some obsolete Act to keep them from demonstrating I should have protested in the same way. They have a right to demonstrate provided they do not cause obstruction.

Mr. FERGUSON: That is an entirely different thing. There is no hindrance to the Hibernians walking out.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In Glasgow there is no hindrance, but in this case there is an hindrance. The Secretary for Scotland has no need to repeal the Act. I think with the application of common-sense this procession could have been held. Xo one has ever complained. I am sure the hon. Member for Bothwell never had any complaint from the Protestant section of the population. I think the interference with traffic is one of the poorest excuses the Chief Constable could rake up. He has given in to a lot of local bigots. In-
stead of being big enough for his trust he has given in to small-minded people.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL [Lords.]

Order for the Third reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to Standing Order 207 dealing with Private Business, which says:
In cases where the Second or Third Reading of a Private Bill, or the consideration of a Bill as amended by the Committee, or any proposed Clause or Amendment, or any Motion relating to a Private Bill is opposed, the same shall be postponed until the day on which the House shall next sit.
I submit for your consideration a proposal that the Third Reading of this Bill, having been objected, ought not to be taken now. Further, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Report of the Committee upstairs is riot available in the Vote Office. We are therefore unable to consider the Bill. As a matter of fact, we do not know what the Bill Is as it now stands. We are informed that it has been amended in some respects, but we do not know in what respects it has been amended, and therefore this House is not in a position to give this Bill adequate and careful consideration, and I submit that it ought not to be further proceeded with to-night.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): I do not know whether the hon. Member gave notice that he was going to raise this point, but I would like to call attention to the fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means giving notice
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.
Consequently the Bill is taken by leave of the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to point out that I applied to the Vote Office for the Report of the Committee, and it is not available. We have been informed that certain Amendments have been made, but we know nothing of their character or what difference they make in the Bill. I submit that to bring forward a Bill in regard to which the Amendments and the Report are not available is departing from every vestige of the usage in this Chamber and on these grounds I urge that we cannot consider this Bill now. I would like to have your ruling on these points.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I draw your attention to the fact that the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means does not refer to the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill at all, but it is a Notice of Motion relating solely to the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill, which is a different Measure altogether. Therefore, so far as the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill is concerned, there is no such Notice on the Order Paper, and I submit that this Bill should not be proceeded with any further.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill is down on the Paper for the Third Reading.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But it is not included in the Suspension Notice.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is correct on that point. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I do not know who is responsible for the printing of the Reports, but I understand that it is not the invariable practice for the Reports of these Committees to be published. This Bill has been set down for the Third Reading by the Chairman of Ways and Means for this evening, and in the absence of anything to the contrary I could not prevent the Third Reading being taken.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand you, Sir, to rule that, in spite of the fact that the ordinary procedure of the House has not been complied with, in so far as the Standing Orders have not been suspended; although the Chairman of Ways and Means has taken special means to see that these particular Standing Orders were suspended in the case of other Private Bills they have not been sus-
pended in the case of the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill; and although the Report of the Committee is not available, yet in the interests of this private company the whole right of the House of Commons are to be set on one side in the interests of a Bill which only got its Second Reading by a comparatively narrow majority? I may say that I shall have very great difficulty in sitting here quietly under such a ruling.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): I do not think that there is any rule that this Bill cannot be taken at 8.15. The ordinary course when a Bill is objected to at 2.45 is to put it down at 8.15 on some other night that comes within the Chairman's power. As to the objection which has been raised as to what took place in the Committee, Amendments made to Private Bills by Committees are never printed separately. The Amendments to another Bill which was taken on a night last week were printed because they were Lords Amendments, and even then only as a matter of courtesy.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Before I came into the House just now I inquired for copies of this Bill, and I was supplied with a copy, and hon. Members will find that it is available.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out that while the Bill is available in the Vote Office, we do not know whether it is in its amended form or not. I desire to make the point that this House only by a small majority gave a Second Reading to this Bill. There is a very large volume of opposition, and I submit that the House of Commons is not entitled to give this Measure a Third Reading under these circumstances without hon. Members being fully aware of what they are doing. This Measure is going to cost the people of Scotland a large amount of money, and I think we are entitled to have it put aside for the time being until the usual notice has been given and the information we require has been made available.

Mr. CLIMIE: I want to get an explanation from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the Second Reading of this Bill was passed through the House last Tuesday night. The next day the Bill came before the Select Committee, and it was two days before them, finishing on Thursday at about one o'clock; but by
a quarter to three on Thursday the Bill had been reported to the House, and now it is down for Third Beading to-night, I should like to ask you, Sir, what is the indecent hurry in connection with the passing of this Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill, in view of the time of the House being required, in the opinion of many of us, for other Measures of much greater importance than this Bill to the people of Scotland?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question as to the urgency of its being set down is not a matter for the Chair, but for the Chairman of Ways and Means, with whose decision I cannot interfere. With regard to the point raised on Standing Order No. 207 (Private Business), I think the correct interpretation of that Standing Order—I have just been looking at it, in view of the point which the hon. Member has raised, and of which I do not think previous notice was given—is as follows: The Standing Order says that the Consideration shall be postponed until the next day on which the House shall sit, and I take that as meaning that it will automatically be postponed until the next day in the absence of any other Standing Order which deals with this matter. I am prepared to rule on Standing Order No. 8 (Public Business), which says that all Private Business set down for certain days and not disposed of by three o'clock shall be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine. The Chairman of Ways and Means has determined that this Bill shall be disposed of at 8.15 to-night. I cannot see that there is anything inconsistent in Standing Order No. 207 (Private Business) to overrule that decision, and I shall rule accordingly. With regard to the question of the printing of the Report of the Committee stage, I think the Chairman of Ways and Means has already said that there is no invariable practice that this shall be done, and I am not convinced that there is any special reason why I should interfere with the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means to have this Bill decided this evening.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Further on the point of Order. May I ask for your ruling on the point that, in the case of the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill, a Notice of Motion has been put down that Stand-
ing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, while no such Notice has been put down in so far as the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill is concerned? May I submit very respectfully that there is, therefore, a distinct difference as between these two Bills, and that, whatever may be said for taking the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill to-night, there is no case for taking the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill?

Mr. YOUNG: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill is down for Third Reading to-night, while the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill is down for Consideration, and the purpose of my Motion which is on the Paper is that the Consideration and the Third Reading may be taken on the same evening. There is, therefore, a difference between the two Orders.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The ruling I have just given has nothing to do with the Notice of Motion for the suspension of Standing Orders 223 and 243. That does not at all affect the ruling I have just given on the other point.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It may be true, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has pointed out, that he has obeyed the letter of the law in his procedure in bringing this matter before the House, although I must say that I am very far from being convinced to that effect. It is, however, true that this House is being treated with very scant courtesy. The responsibilities of this Parliament towards the needs of the people are being put in a very inferior position to the desires of this private company, and I think that the feeling of the House will be to a large extent with those on these benches who feel that this House should not debate, discuss and decide on an important issue of this sort unless ample warning is given that the matter is coming before the House, and unless the subject-matter that is to be discussed is in the hands of Members for their consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that this almost amounts to what I would term sharp practice. It is
the practice of Scottish Members to go home at the week-end, and, knowing before they leave what the business for the week will be, they make their arrangements accordingly. That is a common Parliamentary practice, which is followed by all Members of the House, and, I think, quite rightly. The Government usually inform the House exactly what will be the character of the business, in order that. Members may make their arrangements. We were not informed that this Bill was to come on this week at all. The rejection of the Bill on Second Reading was moved from these benches, and some hon. Members on these benches, whose constituencies are affected and who spoke against the Second Reading of the Bill, would, if they had known that the Bill was to come on to-night, have made it their duty to be present to take part in the Debate. They, however, have gone home, in view of the information that they had as to what the business would be, and now the Chairman of Ways and Means, who must be aware that the Scottish Members have acted in that way, takes action of this kind and disfranchises and debars Members of the House whose constituencies are affected.
I think this House has a certain dignity to uphold. It is the practice of Members of the House to be fair to one another, and it is the practice, while we have acute differences of opinion, that no Member of the House should try to get behind another with whom he has a difference of opinion by any other than open and above-board means. We had our differences when we debated this Bill on the last occasion. We came to a decision, and I accepted that decision, but I claim that on the Third Reading we should again be able to state our views, and that every Member affected should be given reasonable notice. I hope, in view of the fact that a large number of Members have been disfranchised in this way, that we shall adjourn this Debate and have it at a time when every Member interested can be present.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my hon. Friends opposite not to press this Motion? On the occasion of the Second Reading, there was the fullest opportunity given to hon. Members opposite to
criticise this Bill, which they did, in no uncertain fashion, and to express their views on the evils that were to follow if this most admirable scheme of electricity distribution in this part of Scotland were passed by this House. I submit that, in spite of my deep personal respect for the hon. Members opposite, they are very near to an abuse of the practice of this House in moving the adjournment on an occasion of this kind, and I hope the House will respond to the appeal made by the Chairman of Ways and Means and by my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee upstairs, which Committee gave the fullest and most careful consideration to this Bill. After what transpired in this House on the occasion of the Second Reading, and what took place in Committee upstairs, and in view of the facilities offered to hon. Members opposite to make themselves familiar with the whole proceedings of the Committee upstairs—I think it would be an insult to the intelligence of many of my hon. Friends over there to accuse them of not keeping in contact with the proceedings of the Committee—I submit that the House ought not to accept the Motion for the Adjournment, but ought to proceed to give the Third Reading to this Bill.

Sir J. NALL: It was my duty to preside over the Committee upstairs dealing with this Bill and with the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill, and if it will be of any assistance, may I say that this particular Bill was not amended by the Committee? It was very fully heard, at some length, but, generally speaking, the proceedings on the Clyde Valley Bill were not unduly protracted, and I think it my duty to inform the House that this Bill is practically the same Bill as was considered on Second Reading.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I shall regret it if my hon. Friends behind me cannot see their way to follow the advice which has been tendered to them, and to observe the appeals which have been made. It appears to those of us who have not closely followed the Bill that this consideration of it cannot be regarded as a surprise, in view of the lengthy—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? I am myself very deeply interested in this Bill, and
I only got word to-night, very late, that it was coming on. I did not intend to be present, and I am sure many of my colleagues in Scotland would have been present if they had known it was to be taken.

Mr. CLYNES: I was not alluding to this moment, but to the past treatment of the Bill, and to the consideration which it received on Second Reading and in Committee. Therefore, I cannot agree that Members have not had an opportunity of applying their minds to the subject. If my hon. Friends persist in dividing the House on the Motion to adjourn the Debate, I have to announce that, in accordance with Parliamentary custom, it will be the duty of the Government to support the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. FERGUSON: I am sorry for the lack of sportsmanship on the benches opposite. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Labour Members were beaten by a substantial majority. The Bill is greatly in the interests of the working classes of the county of Lanark, which is the feeder of Glasgow. It was the county of Lanark that made Glasgow.

Mr. CLIMIE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in debating the merits of the Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member need not be anxious. I am listening very carefully to see whether the hon. Member who is speaking goes beyond the Motion before the House.

Mr. CLIMIE: What do you mean by that? [HON. MEMBEBS: "Order!"] You be quiet. Do not you insult me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please withdraw that remark.

Mr. CLIMIE: What remark?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not be guilty of any disrespectful conduct to the Chair, and I call on him to withdraw.

Mr. CLIMIE: I certainly would be the last man in the House to use disrespectful language to the Deputy-Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—but I certainly thought the Deputy-Speaker insulted me.

HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is very disrespectful to speak of the Chair having insulted any hon. Member. The hon. Member must withdraw, and I order him to do so.

Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot admit any discussion on that. Will the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Climie) please withdraw?

Mr. B. SMITH: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot listen to any arguments on that question. I call on the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr. B. SMITH: Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled—

HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!'

Mr. CLIMIE: At the request of the Deputy-Speaker, I certainly withdraw any remark that was intended as an insult to him. I certainly did not intend any remark that I made as an insult to him, and I regret that he seemed to think I used any remark that was intended as an insult.

Mr. B. SMITH: With all due deference to yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but sitting here and hearing what I, at least, thought to be a facetious remark applied from the Chairman to the hon. Member—I do not say it was used in any insulting sense—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is doing what I told him he could not do. He is arguing with the Chair.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 147.

Division No. 190.]
AYES.
[8.45 p.m.


Baker, Walter
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dickson, T.
Harbison, Thomas James S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Egan, W. H.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)


Church, Major A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Harris, Percy A.


Clarke, A.
Gillett, George M.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Climie, R.
Greenall, T.
Haycock, A. W.


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.


Healy, Cahir
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Hudson, J. H.
Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jewson, Dorothea
Pringle, W. M. R.
Thurtle, E.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Raffan, P. W.
Viant, S. P.


Jonas, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Raynes, W. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lansbury, George
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, J. C.


Law, A.
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, W,


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McEntee, V. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


March, S.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Wright, W.


Middleton, G.
Sexton, James



Mills, J. E.
Sherwood, George Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nichol, Robert
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Maxton and Mr. Buchanan.


Nixon, H.
Spence, R.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Perry, S. F.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Harvey,C. M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Phillipps, Vivian


Alstead, R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Raffety, F. W.


Amnion, Charles George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rathbone, Hugh H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hirst, G. H.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Barclay, R. Noton
Hobhouse, A. L.
Rea, W. Russell


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Becker, Harry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F, O.(W.Bromwich)


Blundell, F. N.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Robertson, T. A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C, K.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Hughes, Collingwood
Royle, C.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Huntingfield, Lord
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cape, Thomas
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cassels, J. D.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Simpson, J. Hope


Chapman, Sir S.
Kedward, R. M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfst)


Clarry, Reginald George
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Laverack, F. J.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Leach, w.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lee, F.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sutcliffe, T.


Deans, Richard Starry
Lorimer, H. D.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Dodds, S. R.
Loverseed, J. F.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lowth, T.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Dukes, C.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Duncan, C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro,W.)


Dunn, J. Freeman
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
McLean, Major A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Vivian, H.


Ferguson, H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fletcher, Lieut.Com. R. T. H.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Franklin, L. B.
Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wignall, James


Gates, Percy
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Gorman, William
Murray, Robert
Wintringham, Margaret


Gosling, Harry
Nall, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wise, Sir Fredric


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Naylor, T. E.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Groves, T.
Palmer, E. T.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Warne.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
On the last occasion that this Bill was before the House we were told that in Committee we should be able to get the improvements that were necessary. To-
night the Chairman of the Committee has already informed us that the Bill has come back to us without any change whatsoever. There has been no Amendment to the Bill. The result of the passing of this Bill into law will be that this company will be able to stand in the way of all the municipal undertakings either in Glasgow or Kilmarnock, and when these districts are able to give a public service of
electrical power this company will come in and claim the rights which are now being given to it by Parliament. The proceedings in connection with this Measure do not justify the House in passing the Bill It is said that the Bill will mean the employment of a great many people; it will mean the employment of many thousands of men in connection with the projected developments of the company. I submit that there are very few developments contemplated by the company. What the company is contemplating is the possession of further powers. Already we have had instances of how they abuse the position in which they have been placed and take an unfair toll of the community they are supposed to serve.
In the last Debate there was a long discussion as to the poles that had been set up in Gleniffer Braes. The facts are that this electrical power company, when they discovered that the Kilmarnock Corporation were going to supply electrical power to a certain area, pointed out that they had already secured powers over a certain part of the area, and they said to the Kilmarnock Corporation, "You may go on supplying the electric power, but when you are doing it, it means that you will have to pay us a commission on all the power that you supply in that area." By passing this Measure we shall enlarge the area in which this company is to be allowed to carry out, not only its daylight robbery, as one hon. Member suggested, but it night robbery. Whenever we want to use electric power, if another company are supplying it, these people want to have an opportunity of saying that it comes within an area that was agreed upon by Parliament. Hon. Members know very little about this Measure. The majority of the members of the Committee who considered the matter upstairs know very little about Scotland. Practically all the Scottish Members are opposed to the passing of this Measure. Hon. Members do not know the evidence which was given before the Committee, and should not pass this Measure before they have an opportunity of considering what may be said for or against it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to go back upon the arguments which were used in support of the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that ruling may I not submit, as an argument against the Third Reading of the Bill, the fact that we have not got sufficient information. It may be that the House decided that-while we have not got this Report yet it should go on with the consideration of the Measure, and that the facts might be brought out, but I am simply trying to put as an argument against the Third Reading of the Bill the fact that we have not got sufficient information.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would not object to the hon. Member saying that that was one of his reasons, but he cannot argue the matter when we have already dealt with it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point surely I should be able to give the House some reasons.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already ruled that the hon. Member must not argue the matter. He can simply mention this as one of his reasons, but he must not argue it further.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: Of course, I submit to your ruling on this matter. It seems to me that this company can afford to wait some time before it gets this Measure through the House of Commons. There are very many reasons why the public should be protected against any more of those companies digging themselves into other areas unless they are going to perform this useful public service in these areas. Another point is the attitude which the company have taken up during the whole of they discussions with regard to the giving of the interested people, such as the Corporation of Glasgow, the powers that they formerly possessed in connection with this matter. During the discussion on the Second Reading it was brought home to my mind, from the speeches that were made from the other side, that we were going to get all those provisions included, and now it comes back from this Committee, who know very little about Scottish conditions and about the areas concerned, without being changed. In view of the fact that the House does not know the circumstances and that Scottish opinion is against the Measure, and in view of the development of electrical power in the future in our country I move this Amendment.

Mr. NICHOL: I beg to second the Amendment.
With regard to the objection raised by the hon. Member that the proceedings in the Committee were not available, personally through the courtesy of one of the members of the Committee I received about a half hour ago a copy of the proceedings on one or two of the days, but, in spite of having that small amount of information, I find it impossible to get a complete survey of the evidence that was produced in the Committee upstairs. This Bill affects an area of four counties, the whole of the industrial Midlands of Scotland, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, part of Stirlingshire, and practically the whole of Dumbartonshire, and it is a curious state of affairs that the company promoting this Measure should not take steps to find out the views of a single Member of the House of Commons sitting for any part of the area. I think that these include about 30 Members, or nearly half the membership for the whole of Scotland, and it is an extraordinary thing that the promoters of a Bill covering such an extensive area should not, as a mere; question of public right, have made some sort of approach to some group at least of these Members who are vitally interested in the area affected by this Bill, rather than to leave the promotion of the Bill to their trade friends sitting for constituencies in other parts of the country. If there were no other objection to the Bill that in itself would be sufficiently strong to make me at least support the rejection of the Third Reading just as I objected to the Second Reading.
On the Second Reading we had statements made to the effect that the Bill would be inquired into before a Committee. Having gone through the proceedings of that Committee, as far as I could obtain them, even from the proceedings of two days which I was able to obtain after some trouble, while the promoters suggested on Second Reading that they would look into the matter, they never met the facts that were put forward against the Bill on the Second Reading, and there was no great endeavour made to find out the substance of the facts. One of the agents came to me and asked me for the name and address of one of the gentlemen who had given me information. I took the trouble to have that gentleman
here in the House of Commons under the Gallery on the night of the Second Reading Debate, and I informed the promoters of the Bill that he was there. None of them approached me to obtain the information, although they could get it at first hand. The evidence I have here is in a mixed state. You will not get the evidence on that point on the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill, but you will find it in the second day's proceedings of the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill; you find the evidence produced on the one Bill discussed in Committee on the other Bill. It was only by the merest accident that the matter was brought to my notice at all. It was brought to my notice because I was reported to have made an extraordinary statement on page 742 of the Hydro-Electric Power Bill Report. But that really relates to a piece of evidence I produced against the Clyde Valley Bill. I am quoted upstairs as having said the exact opposite of what I said in the House of Commons. I object to misquotations of that character. What I refer to is the following:—
The hon. Member went on to say that instead of supplying electricity at the price stated by the hon. Member, the smaller types of power which this company are now supplying are supplied by the Glasgow Corporation at 625 of a penny.
I never said that at all in this House on the Second Reading. What I did say on the Second Reading was, this:
The supply of large quantities of electricity in bulk was supplied at 625 of a penny in Glasgow by the corporation.
What I said about the small users was this: I gave the actual Glasgow figures for the summer period, the first 11 units at 4d. per unit and subsequent units at 1d. per unit to the smaller users. Those statements are in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Yet what I say on the Second Reading of one Bill is hauled out by the agents as being in favour of the company on another Bill. Another matter is this:
The hon. Member went on to say that not long ago a gentleman in the main street of Renfrew asked this company to quote for a supply of electric light, and he was informed that the minimum price would be £5 per annum.
Does the Strathclyde Company own the Order for the Borough of Renfrew? I think I am right in saying "yes." The high charge is said to be made by the Strathclyde Supply Company. When I
come to find out from the Stock Exchange Year Book what the Strathclyde Company is, I discover that this company was absorbed entirely by the Clyde Valley Company, and that the £89,000 of its shares are held entirely by the Clyde Valley Company. That is worse than sharp practice so far as the giving of evidence upstairs is concerned. I appeal to the Chairman of the Committee opposite. It did not come out in the evidence that the Strathclyde Company is simply another name for the Clyde Valley Company.

Sir J. NALL: It was made quite clear in the Committee that the Strathclyde Company is simply a subsidiary of the Clyde Valley Company.

Mr. NICHOL: It is not in the report of the Committee. At any rate, I do not find it in the report. Of course, I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement. The evidence on the page which I am reading does not make it at all clear.

Sir J. NALL: Which page?

Mr. NICHOL: Page 72 of the second day's proceedings on the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill, not the Bill which we are discussing. To find out the evidence given on any Bill you have to examine the evidence given on all the Bills discussed by that Committee. My point was that the limit which was there to protect the company is being used in this particular district by the subsidiary company in order to put up a barrier which the small user cannot in any way face. That is a serious defect in the Bill. I do not want to deal with other parts of the evidence, but I wish to refer to the Schedule of the Bill. One of the publications of the supporters of the Bill has a particular interest for the Ministry of Transport and for the Government. It is said that this Bill is in no way a barrier to any of the Government schemes of nationalisation; that it does not extend any of the powers of the company so far as the duration of time was concerned, although it made a geographical extension of their powers to certain parishes of Lanarkshire. In studying the powers of the company as it stands, I notice in the Stock Exchange Year Book for the present year the following:
The powers of this company are unlimited in duration and the undertaking is not liable to be purchased by the local authorities at any time.
Having come forward, as they did, in a prospectus sent to every Member of Parliament, asking for support, it is rather naive to suggest that this is in no way likely to conflict with any Government schemes for the organisation of electricity supply because there is no limit of time about it. The company is in the very hopeful position of being absolutely unlimited in that respect under these Bills. There is no question of a compromise between 1971 and 1931 as in the case of the London Electricity Bills, because the company's powers go on in perpetuity. Therefore we have not anything to say on that subject. I put that forward as a type of the half truth with which I have been continually faced as far as the evidence produced by this particular company is concerned. In the evidence I cannot discover any vague resemblance to the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) on the Second Heading. He pictured this company as a fairy godmother laying electric cables and mains in unknown and undeveloped districts. I know some undeveloped districts were covered in this way, but I think this company has long since passed the fairy godmother stage. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Sullivan) gave an instance during the Second Reading Debate of the embargo which the company placed on the supply of electricity to a coal pit. The owner of the pit had to put down a £5,000 transformer as a first instalment before they would allow him to have any power at all. I have given instances in relation to smaller users, and I have shown how the powers given by this House in 1901 have been employed by the company, or by their subsidiary companies—it is all the same to the consumer—until they have reached the stage where, instead of being a fairy godmother, the company is really an incubus on four of the richest counties in Scotland. I cannot discover in the evidence any reference to that part of the Schedule where the company is asking for a limit of 8d. per unit, but I notice that one of the communications sent out to Members of the House of Commons, namely, the statement issued on behalf of the promoters in support of the Third Reading, contains the following:
The rates charged by the company are exceptionally low, the average over all being 1.013 of a penny per unit.
If the company are able to supply at that rate, surely there is no necessity for putting into the Schedule of the Bill a so-called protecting price of 8d. per unit. I was told this was the practice in all Electricity Bills. I admit it is the practice to insert a protecting figure, but I object to such a high protecting figure. There were Bills in which the figure was 2d. and I think on the Hydro-Electric Bill, dealing with the sale of electricity in bulk, the limiting price for the company was changed from 2½d. down to 1¼d.

Sir J. NALL: I think it would be unfortunate if wrong figures were used. Several prices were mentioned in the Hydro-Electric Bill which it is not possible to debate on this Bill, but the figures just mentioned are not the figures.

Mr. CLIMIE: If my memory serves me aright, the figures in the Hydro-Electric Bill were changed from 2½d. to 1¼d., and then reduced from 1¼d. to 1d., that being the ultimate figure.

Sir J. NALL: That is what is called the standard price in the Hydro-Electric Bill and not the price in the Schedule, which under one head was 3d. and was reduced to 1½d., and under another head was 2d. and was reduced to 1d. Under still another the standard price of 2½d. was reduced to 1d., but these all relate to bulk supplies, and the Schedule to which the hon. Member refers relates to a lighting supply.

Mr. CLIMIE: The hon. Member made that quite clear.

Mr. N1CH0L: The so-called standard or protecting prices in Electricity Bills differ under modern practice. In 1900 it would have been fair, even for a bulk supply, to ask for a protecting price of 2½d. or 3d., but the changed conditions are recognised by the Committee; it is recognised that such a price is absurdly high, and they have reduced it. However, I am not quarrelling about the figure, which may be 1d. or 1¼d. I suggested during the Second Heading Debate that we would be prepared to consider the Bill if the so-called standard or protecting price were reduced from 8d. to 4d., but that point seems to have been ignored, and the Schedule of the Bill stands unamended. It might have been possible for some person, who was
prepared to go to the expense, to lay a petition, but it would have been very difficult to do so in the very limited time available. Only last week we were discussing the Second Beading, and there has been a great deal of undue haste. In the evidence on the other Bill, which deals with this point, it was not denied that the protecting price was used as a barrier to the use of electricity. I gave an instance of an office which could be lit by gas for £2, but £5 a year was the lowest at which it was possible to get an electricity supply, and the only attempt at evidence on that point was to suggest that the blame, if any, lay with the subsidiary supply company, which was owned by the main company. I do not think that meets the point at all.
Another point which apparently has not been taken into consideration is the very high charge made by this private electricity enterprise for its capital. It is provided that any preference shares created under the powers of this Measure are to be at a rate, not exceeding £8 per cent, per annum. The ordinary dividend of the company is now 8 per cent, and its preference shares on this basis are going to be 8 per cent. I suggest that the company could not raise this capital on the old 6 per cent, at Which they previously got some of their preference shares. Now they are asking for powers for an extra £1,000,000. An extra £1,000,000 of capital at the cheapest rate at which this company is likely to raise it is going to cost 3½ per cent, more than the local authorities of this area can place the money at. It is a very serious proposition. Three and a half per cent, on £1,000,000 is a very big charge. I am not going into the question of interest and interest free, with Which we in Glasgow, so far as housing is concerned, have been very familiar for the last 12 years. Even from the point of view of private enterprise, every company takes into consideration how cheaply it can get the capital for any undertaking. I am not a very good arithmetician. Some Members below the Gangway are not very good arithmeticians either. I have a whisper that 3£ per cent, on £1,000,000 is £35,000,000, but I have worked it out at £35,000. That is a very large charge to be met in any one year. Taking into consideration the capital already existing of this company, some at 6 and 7 and some 8 per cent., and
the ordinary shares which bear 8 per cent., the total capital of this company with the extra £1,000,000 will be round about £3,500,000.
We are going to have on this, if my calculation made very rapidly is correct, and I am open to correction, as an extra charge to this area for its electricity supply; an annual charge for interest alone of something over £120,000 a year. I suggest that that is a case which has not been met in Committee. Because of the very high price that a company of this nature has to pay if it goes on to the ordinary money market to get additional capital, I would suggest to the Minister of Transport that what he should aim at is a Bill which would put the whole of this area under a joint electricity board which would be run by the Glasgow corporation. I will give one reason for that. This will clear up one of the points which caused some difficulty on the Second Reading Debate. We have in Ayrshire a joint electricity board of this character formed by the Kilmarnock Town Council and the county council and the Ayr Burghs. This joint electricity hoard came into conflict with the Clyde Valley Electrical Company in so far as the town of Paisley is concerned. That town, situated in the middle of Renfrewshire, and in the middle of my own constituency, did not come within the original scope of the 1901 Bill of the Clyde Valley Company. Paisley applied to the company and to the joint electricity board for Ayrshire for terms as to a supply of electricity and they got much better terms from the local authority joint board for Ayrshire. But when they tried to get the electrical current from the power station of Kilmarnock, they were faced with the proposition that it had to come through an area—the landward district of Renfrewshire—for which the Clyde Valley Electrical Company had a monopoly by the 1901 Act. It was for a way-leave, not for the supply of current, through their territory, from Kilmarnock to Paisley, that the supply line over the Gleniffer Braes was erected. Again we have an instance of the company coming in and ma-king itself responsible for that disfiguring line. They insisted on the line on which it was to come going over the uninhabited but beautiful Gleniffer Braes instead of bringing it round the valley.

Mr. HANNON: I hope the hon. Member will admit I was right in my original contention.

Mr. NICHOL: The hon. Member was not right, because he will discover that he thoroughly mixed up the question of the Ayr County Council.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think this Debate is getting too wide. Hon. Members must please restrict themselves to the actual provisions in the Bill. The Third Reading is not so wide as the Second Reading. We must deal with the Bill itself.

Mr. NICHOL: I was only suggesting, as far as the Government were concerned, that here was an alternative to extending the powers of these private companies in this particular area and suggesting a joint board, and I simply was using the Ayrshire illustration as an example which the Government might consider so far as the four counties in the Clyde Valley were concerned. I admit that there may be a geographical illusion and disillusion that may have occurred on both sides on the Second Reading. This is not the time for the Government to consider extending this company's powers, even to the extent of another £1,000,000. That £1,000,000 will in the end have to be compensated by th6 Government when they come to any general scheme. I do not believe in the struggle for cheap power that this country is going to be faced with as against other industrial countries of the world. I do not believe we can go on perpetually basing our power supply on the supposition that 8 per cent. is the cheapest price we can pay for our capital expenditure. I do not believe that is a feasible proposition if this country is to keep its end tip against other countries. I believe that with coal as the prime factor, this country should become an easy competitor so far as cheap power is concerned, but it will never be so unless it uses every opportunity of getting its capital expenditure at the very lowest amount. I suggest that it would be a good proposition for the Government to consider whether they should not postpone this Bill, which is really an inheritance from the last Government. It was promoted before the General Election, which was so disastrous to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and my friends suggest that they,
as representatives of capital, had too much sense to put it through—I suggest that it is one of those inheritances that is usually damnosa. I understand that Latin form is quite in order in the House. I suggest to the Government it would be in line with the policy of the Labour party if, instead of supporting this particular Measure, they would take into hand the considerations set forward that this is not a basis on which we can economically and efficiently develop the electrical power of this country and that it would be in the interest of this country if this Bill, instead of being passed to-night, and another obstacle put in the way of a real scheme, were postponed and read the Third time this day three months.

Mr. LANSBURY: If this question of electricity only concerned Scotland, I should feel very much inclined not to take any part in the discussion, but electricity for this island is something that concerns the whole country. It is certain that within a short period some big national schemes will be forthcoming for dealing with electricity in a national manner. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is said to be following the light and has produced with some assistance a pamphlet or book on the subject—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order to discuss general questions on the Third Reading of a Bill. The hon. Member may advance reasons why the Bill should be rejected for what it actually contains, but he cannot argue on general lines.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think I shall be able to show the connection between what I was saying and what the Bill contains. I started by telling the House that this question of electricity was a national one, and no doubt the Government and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were preparing a big national scheme for dealing with the subject. This Bill proposes to give a certain company power to raise £1,000,000 more capital, and my argument is that the people supplying this capital will eventually come to us for compensation, because they will not be able to earn dividends on the money they are providing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That might be relevant to the point of this particular Bill, but the hon. Member must argue on what is in the Bill itself.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then I will read what is in the Bill. These are the words:
Whereas it is expedient that the company should, be empowered to raise additional capital and that they should, in respect of such additional capital, be empowered to raise money by borrowing or by the creation and issue of debentures or debenture stock, and that the powers of the company in respect of the raising of money should be enlarged and extended as by the Act, provided:
And then it goes on to provide, in Clause 5, that
the company may from time to time raise additional capital not exceeding in the whole £1,000,000 nominal capital by the creation and issue at their option of new ordinary shares, preferred ordinary shares, deferred ordinary shares, or preference shares of £1 each, or wholly or partially by any one or more of these modes respectively, and they may attach to any such capital such rights, liabilities, privileges and preferences as they think fit. Provided always (a) that no right shall thereby he conferred upon the holders of ordinary shares to convert the same into preference shares; and (b) that any new shares issued shall not have right to participate in the special reserve funds which have already been established (under various Sub-sections) for the benefit of the preference shares referred to in the Sub-sections respectively without the consent of the holders of such preference shares.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in reading the full text of a Private Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: With great respect, I am wishing to establish my point as to what is in the Bill.

Major BURNIE: Is it not in order to read this, seeing that it is impossible to get a copy of the Bill in the Vote Office?

Mr. LANSBURY: I was trying to establish the relationship of my argument to something in the Bill. Here is a Bill, copies of which cannot be obtained in the Vote Office, and hon. Members are asked to vote on it and to decide a thing of which, practically, they know nothing. We are not allowed to protest any more on that point, or I should have started ray speech with a protest. The point I am trying to establish, with your permission, is the relevancy of my arguments to what is actually contained in the Bill. The real objection I have to this Bill is that the country is going to give a vested
interest in these electric undertakings, and if there is a national scheme brought forward for dealing with electricity every one of these persons who are going to be allowed to subscribe this new capital will be putting in a very high claim for compensation because they are not going to be allowed to secure the profits promised them. At this time of the day this House ought not, by giving a Third Reading to this Bill, to create this vested interest.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is not this an argument against the introduction of any Private Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely when the Government told us only three or four days ago, through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they were preparing a national scheme for dealing with electricity, we are entitled to use that as an argument why more vested interests should not be set up for another Government to have to sweep away when they come to deal with this question. It has nothing to do with private Bills in the ordinary sense. It has only to do with this particular private Bill in connection with the definite promise of the Government to introduce further legislation on the subject. The point I want to make, further, is that we in London have very bitter experience of the manner in which this sort of thing is operated.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to deal with the case of London on this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the discussion of this Bill, which has been read a Second time and sent to a Committee, and now stands for Third Reading, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to go into these big questions of policy.

Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect, surely when the Bill comes to us for Third Reading we have a right to say why we object to the Bill being read a Third time? I have heard all kinds of Bills discussed in this House, and I have heard on the First, Second, and Third Readings the same speeches on both sides on each separate occasion. I am not going to challenge your ruling, Sir, but I say that I think this is an example of a vested interest taking this House, as it
Were, be the throat at the end of the Session, and thrusting this Bill down its throat. It is indecent the haste with which this Bill has been rushed through. The experience of London proves that these great corporations, when they know that the Government are going to deal with a certain matter, always take good care to look after the vested interests they have at stake. They did it in the case of the water companies, and in the case of the dock companies, and London has to pay through the nose.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in repeatedly referring to the London water and electricity supplies?

Mr. LANSBURY: I never mentioned London electricity. I mentioned the dock companies and the water companies which we have already had to buy out, and London has had to pay very heavily.

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled out just now that the hon. Member was not in order in referring to anything that was not specified in this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have hardly yet appreciated the thread of the hon. Member's remarks.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have got in my mind a long speech on that subject, but, in deference to your ruling, Sir, I am holding it over for another occasion. To come back to the Bill. Here is a Clause which, I think, ought not to be in a Bill of this kind:
The company may within the area of supply for the purpose of supplying any premises with electricity lay down take up alter relay or renew in across or along any street not repairable by the local authority such mains wires and apparatus as may be requisite or proper for furnishing a supply in such street or in the neighbourhood thereof and the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, and of the existing Acts so far as they are applicable for the purposes of this Section shall extend and apply mutatis mutandis to and for the purposes of this Section as if all such streets had been specified in this Act.
I understood hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentleman opposite were the upholders of private property and private rights. But here power is given to a company, whether the owners care for it or not, to tear up a street and make such arrangements in putting down an electri-
city supply as they please, and interfere with private rights. Whenever we propose to interfere with private rights hon. Gentlemen are on their hind legs protesting. I do not think any private company should have such powers as are given here. When you get to the Schedule to the Bill, I think it perfectly monstrous that a company should have a minimum price of 8d. per unit. Section 1 of the Schedule says:
Where the company charge any consumer by the actual amount of energy supplied to him they shall be entitled to charge him at the following rates per quarter:—

(a) In respect of the quarters ending 31st March and 31st December—For any amount up to 15 units, 10s., and for each unit over 15 units, 8d.
(b) In respect of the quarters ending 30th June and 30th September—For any amount up to 10 units, 6s. 8d., and for each unit over 10 units, 8d."

I think that is a pretty stiff price to pay, and I expect it will be argued that this is for lighting, and that there is another Bill to deal with bulk supply. I am one who thinks that bulk supply and private supply should be averaged, and done by an authority, or, if you have a company, by one company, because in the district I come from we are able to supply private people ever so much cheaper, because we supply in bulk as well as to the private consumer, and in this case it seems to me the people in this particular area are really going to be done very badly by having two companies dealing with this matter, which of course penalises the poor people. That is nothing unusual. There is another Section, namely, Section 3 of the Schedule, which I think very bad indeed, under which a service rental, payable in advance, is charged of £4 per annum. The Section reads thus:
A service rental charge payable in advance of £4 per annum for any dwelling-house containing not more than three apartments with a further charge at the rate of £1 per annum for each additional apartment and in addition a sum of 3d. per unit for all units supplied. Provided that the sum so charged to an individual consumer shall not in any calendar year exceed 8d. per unit supplied.
For the purpose of this Section the word 'apartment' shall or shall be deemed to include all apartments in or connected with a dwelling-house but shall not include passages landings cellars cloakrooms bathrooms or lavatories. Any domestic offices or outside buildings may be included or excluded according to the use of electricity proposed to be made therein.
I say that that Section ought to go out of the Bill. I think it perfectly monstrous to say to poor people that they must put down £4 before they are allowed to have any electricity.

Sir J. NALL: That particular Section says quite distinctly, provided the charge does not come to more than 8d. per unit supplied.

Mr. LANSBURY: Whoever said it did not say that? I read it out. I understand the English language.

Sir J. NALL: The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the company will not give a supply unless they set first of all, £4 put down. The Committee went into this. The £4 is only in the case of a large supply, and that charge cannot exceed 8d. per unit.

Mr. LANSBURY: The charge does not exceed 8d. per unit per year! One knows that. I read it out. Here is what it says:
The people who want a large supply—
What do you mean by a large supply?
A service rental charge payable in advance of £4 per annum for any dwelling-house containing not more than three apartments—
I do not consider that that is a big house. I do not consider that this would be a large supply, especially when you leave out the stairway and passages, bath-room, lavatory, cloak-room and all the rest of it. I want to put it to the hon. and gallant Member opposite that this would rule out nearly every one of his constituents.

Sir J. NALL: No!

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, it would. Every one of the poor constituents that the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents in this House. I repeat that to call upon these people to pay about £4 in advance is too much. I think that to say that you may or may not exclude the light from the various places—which I will not detain the House to read again—to prevent people taking light there is perfectly disgusting and disgraceful. I hope the House will just remember that there is such a thing as watered stock, which means putting too much money into a concern, knowing that the Government or the municipality will be obliged to buy it up in a very short time. That is one reason
why this Bill should be rejected. But the main reason is that it is not going to give a supply to people whose interests this House ought to be foremost in defending. I am one of those fortunate people that have electricity in my home. In our district we are putting through, out of the Unemployment Grants Committee grants, the cables of a municipal supply down the poorest streets, and we are going to use the profits we make out of our undertakings to wire the poorest houses in the borough. Because we know that this company will do no such thing, but will have first to earn dividends on this nearly £3,000,000 capital, which dividends will be nearly double what the municipalities and the county corporation can borrow money for—I am astounded that at this time of day this House, at the end of a Session like this, should allow the creation of monopolists; that Members should allow these to take them by the throat and thrust this Bill down their throats!

10.0 P.M.

Sir J. NALL: It is the custom when an hon. Member has been on a Committee of a Private Bill, and that Bill is challenged in the House, and it is his duty, so far as lies in his power, to explain to the House the reasons which have caused the Committee to come to a decision contrary to what some critics in the House think to be right. In the case of this particular Bill there was a very lengthy Debate on the Second Reading, and, obviously, it was the duty of the Committee to be informed upon the points raised, upon what lines the company was conducting its existing business, and whether, in addition, it was a concern suitable to be trusted with the powers for which it asked. The further powers this company seeks under this Bill are simply explained. It has been suggested that its powers would be wide, far-reaching, and a monopoly. The Bill is prompted, so it was represented to the Committee—and so I believe it to be—and it was accepted by the Committee—by a desire to supply a public need. This company, under the Act of 1901, operates as electricity producers. The bulk of that production is sold either for power purposes or in bulk to other undertakers and distributors.
As to the distribution for power purposes there was no question before the Committee. No objection was raised in
this House. All that we heard against the Bill was really limited to its conduct in business generally and particularly with reference to electric light, and the manner of the local supply. As was said by the Mover of the rejection of the Bill this Company operates over four counties. Not one of those counties has petitioned in this House against the Bill. On the contrary, they are all willing for it to pass. The Bill seeks to confirm the company—

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that these counties have petitioned in favour of the Bill?

Sir J. NALL: I say they have not petitioned against it. We were told, particularly in the case of Lanark, that they desire the Bill should be passed in order that a public need might be met.

Mr. CLIMIE: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know about Lanark? The town clerk of Lanark was there as a witness, and was not in favour.

Sir J. NALL: Let me explain. The Clyde Valley Company carries the power up and down the area and sells it to the various district authorities of Lanark, as the House will hear later. They sell this power to the Clyde Company, and witnesses from the area said that they desired to buy their power from the Clyde Valley Company. The main object of this Bill is to enable the Clyde Valley Power Company to undertake the distribution of electricity for electric lighting purposes where it already supplies the power. Under its existing Act it is not allowed to sell electricity for lighting purposes. The company wishes to give a supply to the people who take power from them, and in all cases the current sold for lighting must not exceed 20 per cent. of what they sell for power. The situation, really, is this: That, in the main, the various authorities up and down the area take a supply in bulk from this company, and they supply in detail, as it were, in their own area. In every case where the local authority, or where some other company, has not undertaken to make a distribution in detail, the people of these localities are unable to get a supply for lighting purposes, although the mains of the company run past their houses.
It was explained to the Committee upstairs that in some instances so acute has been the demand for powers for lighting purposes from the mains of this company that, with the approval of the local authority, the company had provisionally given a supply for lighting purposes to these people, this procedure, of course, to be legalised under this Bill. What can be more absurd than that in an area where neither the local authority nor any other distributor undertakes to supply electric light, although the power mains of this power company go through the district, the people cannot get a supply for lighting purposes? That is the reason why Clause 26 simply sets out that the company may supply light where they already have power to supply power subject to the consent of the local authority. They cannot move in this matter without the consent of the local authority, be it county council or other authority concerned. That fact alone is a sufficient answer to most of the points which have been raised, but I owe it to the House to go further into some of them.
It was alleged that this Bill would interfere with municipal undertakings, but no grounds for that allegation were forthcoming, and, indeed, so far from interfering with municipal undertakings, this very Clyde Valley Company takes a supply from Kilmarnock and transmits this energy over its mains to Paisley, where the current is handed over, and the Clyde Valley Company get absolutely no toll or commission either for providing the mains or transmitting the power. It simply does it as an act of grace because it forms part of the electrical undertaking in that part of the country. So far, in that respect, from interfering with municipalities, it actually assists, without any charge or revenue, the transmission of power from one borough to another along its own mains. A further point relating to interference with the municipal authorities is that, whilst it was alleged that this company was overcharging for supplies, charging, I think, as much as 8d. a unit, it was said, in fact, the charges for distribution in the area vary very considerably. I asked the promoters to produce, for the information of the Committee, some scale showing the charges made for light and power by the different
distributing authorities in the area of the company. Naturally we wished to know what was the scale of charges made by the Strathclyde Company which, we were informed, is a subsidiary concern of the Clyde Valley Company. The Clyde Valley only supply in bulk. The Strathclyde Company is a local distributing company and the Strathclyde scale of charges o is the same as the Glasgow Corporation scale. The 1923 charges of the Strathclyde Company are for houses, 4.5d., the Coatbridge Company charges 7.7d., the Burgh of Hamilton 8d., the Burgh of Motherwell 5d., the Electric Supply of Dumbarton 6d., the Burgh of Paisley 6.5d., and the Kilmalcolm Company 11d. Those are the charges communicated to the Committee as being the maximum charges made in fact by various distributors in the area. The outstanding fact is simply that the Strathclyde subsidiary company charge the same rate as the Glasgow Corporation. I also asked to be informed with reference to the allegation of a sum of £5 being demanded in Renfrew. The company has been unable to trace any such application.

Mr. NICHOL: I brought a witness in connection with that point into the House on that night, and I have since supplied the agents with the gentleman's address and the company whose office it was.

Sir J. NALL: I think the hon. Member might have told a Member of the Committee that he had that information available because I, as Chairman of the Committee, told the promoters the allegation had been made and we desired to be informed how the circumstances had arisen and their statement to me is that they have been unable to trace the case and no such scale exists in their scale of charges.

Mr. NICHOL: I suggest—

Sir J. NALL: I really cannot give way. I have listened patiently to speeches from the other side. I have explained why this Bill is necessary to met the needs of people who are now without electric light, whose houses are near the present mains of supply anti who desire to be supplied, subject to the consent of the local authority. I think the Seconder of the Amendment referred to a similar point. There, again, I can only say the four counties concerned have not petitioned against the Bill, and in the
case of Lanark the Town Clerk informed us they were anxious that it should pass. With regard to the charges in the Schedule, there again the schedule provides maximum charges and not the actual scale which will be in force.

Mr. NICHOL: They have been minimum charges, too.

Sir J. NALL: They have not. What the Committee had to consider was this: Has this company in fact conducted its operations in a reasonable manner? Is there any complaint as to the way in which it conducts its business? The answer is that there was no complaint. Their charges in bulk supply were below the Glasgow Corporation, and in detail supply they were similar to the Glasgow Corporation, and therefore it seems perfectly reasonable, in addition to their powers under the Act, that they should have this further power to supply for lighting purposes. The 8d. in the Schedule was in the mind of the Committee, and having regard to the table of charges made by other authorities, and by this company which had been handed into the Committee, we decided that, owing to the fact that already in one case 8d. was charged, and already in other cases the company itself charged below that figure, there was nothing unreasonable in passing the Schedule with the 8d. in it.
With regard to the capital issued considerable Amendments were made to the capital Clauses in the other House, and a very lengthy Memorandum pointed out that certain changes ought to be made in the original Bill. Those changes were made in the other House, therefore it was not necessary for the Committee of this House to make further changes, having regard to the fact that the Company was acting reasonably and supplying cheaply. As the Company say in their Memorandum the need for additional capital powers is urgent, as they have an immediate special expenditure of £600,000 to meet for new developments, and there is an annual charge of £200,000 a year to meet as well. Therefore it is necessary for their capital powers to be increased accordingly. They have already extended their supply very considerably, and consumers are being added in large numbers. The £4 which has been referred
to has a proviso attached to it. It is no good saying you are going to charge—

Mr. LANSBURY: It is the £4 deposit we object to, and not the cost.

Sir J. NALL: I have sat on Committees upstairs throughout this and the last Session, and many hon. Members have sat with me, and I hope I am not so stupid as to come down here and speak in support of a Bill without knowing what is in it. The company may charge £4 plus so much per unit provided that the total charge does not come to more than 8d. per unit, and if they do not use £4 worth of current—

Mr. LANSBURY: You do not understand my point. A person has to pay £4 down before he can get an electricity supply.

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. and gallant Member gives way, the hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.

Sir J. NALL: It is an optional Clause, and it is arranged so that the terms of the paragraph may be applied. A man may live in a small house, and if he uses a large supply it would be to his advantage to go under one of these schemes. The whole thing is the proviso which says that the total cost must not be more than 8d. per unit.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is not my point.

Sir J. NALL: I am afraid I cannot convince the hon. Member opposite, but I appeal to other hon. Members who have sat on the Committee, and know something of these matters through their experience on local authorities.
The other point that was raised related to the laying of mains in private streets. That is a very well-known Clause in the Committee Rooms upstairs, and I think that every local authority in charge of an electricity supply has asked for similar powers this Session. There is absolutely no point about that. For the rest, the Bill simply enables an existing concern so to extend its operations as is urgently necessary in the public interest, the charges that may be made and the capital powers that are sought are in my view, and I venture to say in the view of Members of the Committee who sat with me, perfectly reasonable, and it is in the
public interest that we should pass the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to delay the House to any extent in this Third Reading Debate. I spoke in the Debate on the Second Reading, and, I think, stated the case for the people of that area not unfairly; and I want to believe that this House is assembled here discussing this Bill in the interests of the community, and not in the interest of the company promoting it. The main argument which I put before the House on the Second Reading was that this company has not developed the area which it already has by its existing powers, to the extent that would justify this House in granting to it a wider area of operations. We have a rich agricultural country, with mixed farming, but mainly dairying, and on a dairy farm the greatest use can be made of electrical power in butter-making, creamery work, cheese-making, and in other directions. There is practically no farm to which power is brought in the counties of Renfrew and Dumbarton, to which the old powers extend, without going right down to South Lanark, and the point which I have tried to urge upon this House, and which I tried unsuccessfully to get the House to appreciate on the Second Reading, was that there is an ample field for exploitation of electricity and profit-making in the old area, without extending into any new area.
I did not deal on the Second Reading with the financial arrangements in this Bill, and I shall be willing to be interrupted and corrected on this matter, because on matters of finance I plead guilty to being absolutely innocent and inexperienced. If I have read correctly the Bill and the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Third Reading of the Bill, which they have been able to issue to Members of this House, although the official information of the House is not yet to hand—and they could also tell us that the Bill stands for Third Reading on Monday, the 4th August, 1924, although the officials of my party were unable to inform me to that effect in the Whip that they issued of to-day's business; and, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad if on some occasion you could advise me as to how people who are interested in Measures can get them rushed through the House at light-
ning speed, while those who have other points of interest find it impossible to get even five minutes in which to debate them—I find from the Bill and from the statement that the present capital of the company, counting in ordinary shares, 30,000 preference shares, and 50,000 second preference shares, amounts, if my addition and multiplication are correct, to 140,000 £10 shares, making a total share capital of £1,400,000 at the present moment.
Out of that £1,400,000, they have already expended £2,500,000! That is pretty clever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should get in touch with these people, and find out how it is possible to spend £2,500,000 out of £1,400,000. This is a point at which I should be very glad of a little assistance from the financial experts, because this is a tip that would be useful to all of us in our private lives. This is a matter, I am quite sure, upon which the whole nation wants to be informed. This was a problem that used to bother Mr. Micawber, and he could not find the solution, but here the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company has found the solution of how to spend £2,500,000 out of a total capital of £1,400,000. I put it to the House that the extra £1,000,000 capital is not for further development but to pay for developments that have already taken place. If it be the case that this extra £1,000,000 has been already spent, and that the purpose of the Bill is to make the company solvent, then all the arguments about unemployment, which get votes from simple Members below the Gangway in the belief that it will set up a stir in their constituencies, constituencies which produce electrical machinery, are quite illogical.

Mr. HANNON: This disquisition on finance is intensely interesting, but did my hon. Friend ever hear of any company in this country employing its accumulated reserves for a further expansion of business?

Mr. MAXTON: This company has been in existence for some years, and, presumably, has had some accumulated reserves, but, on the Second Reading, hon. Members opposite told us how this company had struggled on without profit for years and years.

Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman is really serious, I took the opportunity of speaking on Second Reading,
and I said that my recollection was that the company had not been able to pay any dividend for five or six years. I found, in fact, that it was 11 years; in other words, one-half of the period of its existence. For the first two years it actually made not enough to pay expenses and had to raise funds to pay its expenses. It then got into a position where it was making a trading profit, but still it had not sufficient credit to be able to raise funds for the expansion of its business, so that for many years, even when it was making a considerable profit, it was still unable to give any money back to its shareholders, and it had to put the whole of the trading balance back into the business for the capital purposes of the company. That was the position of the company for the first 11 years of its existence, or one-half el the time it has existed, and I think hon. Members will agree that it did a great service to the community for 11 years, when nobody else would provide an electricity supply to the district.

Mr. MAXTON: This is what we are to understand now as a private company having had a rough time, and that it started with £1,400,000 capital. That is the total value. Everything that has been put into it, share capital, first debenture, second debenture, and so on. Is there something else that we do not know about?

Sir J, NALL: The Committee were informed that the loan capital amounts to £700,000, issued to the amount of £692,000.

Mr. MAXTON: Presumably borrowed on the strength of the capital subscribed. You do not get a loan of £600,000 unless you can show that you have some tangible possessions.

Sir J. NALL: Not in Scotland.

Mr. BALFOUR: I did not like to mention the loan capital, because I was not sure about it, but I had a recollection of something like £600,000 or £700,000 of loan capital to be added to the £1,400,000. Those figures have to be added together if you are to get at the total capital of the company.

Mr. MAXTON: This is a company that has been having a bad time. It started with £1,400,000, and it is now valued at £2,500,000. I presume that the difference
represents profit. If I am not mistaken, this is a company which had its origin on the other side of the Atlantic, where they are alleged to be slicker than people on this side. This company has asked for £1,000,000 more capital.

Mr. BALFOUR: They have lost money on it.

Mr. MAXTON: You told me that before. There is not one company in this country, according to hon. Members opposite, that is not losing money every day. It is marvellous how they seem to survive, and how they can produce a statement like this when they apply to this House. They say: "This is a good company. It is a reputable company. This is a company that has done its work well in the past and has managed its finances well. This is a company that we can trust with further powers." We are asked to say that, in the opinion of this House, we regard this as a company worthy to be trusted with a responsible bit of national work. I want hon. Members opposite to tell me what is the great idea involved in breaking up £10 shares into £1 shares?

Mr. BALFOUR: So that working men can subscribe.

Mr. MAXTON: I thought that was the exact idea. Now is the time for the big men to make their get-away. Now is the time for getting the small subscribers. We are asked to make this House an agency of the Stock Exchange; a second-rate bucket shop; and to give to the people of this country the impression that this company is a sound financial concern in which small investors—people with a pound to spare—can safely invest their money. The poor widow who has saved up a few pounds—we hear about her always—is to be roped into this share capital. She could not get in at the beginning, and she is to come in now. This company is to be valued at £2,500,000. £1,000,000 of new capital is to be put in by small subscribers who know nothing about finance and who believe that this House is a House that protects the common people. We are going to give the company statutory powers, and tell the people of this country to hand their savings over to the pockets of these individuals. It is a fraud which I will not participate in. I have the greatest
pleasure in supporting the Motion that this Bill be read a Second time on this day three months.

Mr. CLIMIE: I am not sure about the custom in this House. I was a member of the Select Committee that considered this Bill, along with the Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Bill, upstairs. I listened carefully to the speeches made in the Debate on the Second Reading, and I remember hon. Members opposite saying that the Bill would go to the Committee upstairs and that all the objections made to it could be dealt with there, and the whole matter could be straightened out. I was appointed a member of that Committee, and I understood when going on the Committee that there would be an opportunity of amending the Bill. When I got on to the Committee I learned that the custom of the Committee is to consider only those Clauses that are being opposed, and not the whole Bill at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: On the contrary. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent my attitude as Chairman of the Committee. One of the first things which I did was to tell the promoters of the objections which had been raised and to ask them to supply those particulars about the charges that had been asked for.

Mr. CLIMIE: If my memory serves me aright, when counsel for the promoters started to open up this question the Chairman informed him—and he will find this in the shorthand notes—that the whole matter had been discussed in the Hydro-Electric Bill, and that the only thing which we needed to discuss were the Clauses that were being opposed.

Sir J. NALL: That course was adopted after we had approved of the Preamble. When the room was cleared I asked Members of the Committee—and the hon. Member was there—whether they wished to be informed particularly on any other Clause of the Bill, and every Member, including my hon. Friend opposite, said that he did not need any such information.

Mr. CLIMIE: I know that the hon. Member did say that. [Laughter.] I do not understand what the laughing means. All I want to say is that the Preamble to the Bill was approved without any Adjournment at all. However
much I may be wrong in my impression from my first experience on a Select Committee, I want to say that there was no discussion at all on any of the Clauses of the Bill, other than those Clauses that were objected to by the Glasgow Corporation. No other Clauses were discussed.

Sir J. NALL: By whom?

Mr. CLIMIE: By anyone.

Sir J. NALL: rose—

Mr. CLIMIE: I am not going to give way.

Sir J. NALL: What you have said is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member was a member of the Committee, and he is entitled to state his view.

Mr. CLIMIE: Those were the impressions which I carried away from the Committee. I want to bring out points that have not been touched by the Chairman of the Select Committee, who made a speech on behalf of the Bill to-night. It will be remembered that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was very insistent in pointing out that the main purpose of the Bill was to give service to the citizens in four counties presently covered by the company. I suggest that that was not the main purpose of the Bill. If you look at Clause 23 you will find the main purpose of the Bill is stated. The Clause mentions that
from the passing of the Act the limits within which the company may supply electrical energy shall be extended so as to include
a number of stated parishes in Lanarkshire. The main purpose of the Bill was that the company should take in those various parishes. For 23 years the company has had an area which it could supply under its powers. Within that area is the town of Lanark. Yet the company has not yet carried electricity into Lanark. The company are not introducing this Bill so as to be able to sell electricity to the people of Lanark; they are introducing it for other purposes.
I wanted to raise an important point that was not raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee in introducing the Bill. It is a point which was brought out by the opposition to the Bill in Committee. In my view the Glasgow corporation were fighting for a most important
principle. Twenty-three years ago this company applied for certain powers and got them under the Act of 1901, Clause 66 of which gives the Glasgow Corporation certain protection. This House inserted a Clause in that Measure for the protection of the Glasgow Corporation, and in 1904, when the company was again before this House seeking for a minor Bill, again this House inserted a Clause giving certain protection to the Glasgow Corporation. In 1912 the Glasgow Corporation promoted a Bill which became an Act, and in that Act this company got a protective Clause similar to that given to the corporation in 1901 and 1904. When we came to deal with this Bill I found in Committee that this protective Clause was denied to the Glasgow Corporation. I was amazed at the decision. I believe the Committee gave the matter the most careful consideration, and I suppose we all look at these questions from different angles but I certainly thought it amazing that while the Corporation secured protective Clauses in 1901 and 1904 and gave the company the same protective Clause in 1912, we in 1924 were going to adopt a reactionary attitude in this House with a Labour Government in office.
After all the Government have to bear responsibility for the passing of the Bill, yet we are refusing to give the Corporation that protection which it received in the years I have mentioned. I cannot believe that this House is prepared to rake such a step. I cannot imagine that this House is more reactionary than the House of Commons of 1901 or 1904 or 1912. I have in mind an illustration of why this House should be careful in regard to private legislation. In 1922 we passed the Grampian Electricity Bill and in 1924 an Amendment to that Act was passed through this House without any discussion. I saw it going through, but I was a new Member and did not know the roles sufficiently well to be able to oppose it. Hon. Members on the other side speak about Labour Members trying to prevent these companies giving work to the unemployed. The Grampian Bill was passed in 1922, the company got liberty to go on with their scheme, to build their station and to generate electricity for the development of this area, and what happened? They did not spend a penny in developing the Grampian
scheme from 1922 until 1924. They then came before the House under a Labour Government—what the reason is for it I do not know—and under this Government the Grampian Electricity Act was amended very much in favour of the company. I think the House should refuse to give the Third Reading, seeing that the Committee were unable to insert that protective Clause.

Mr. THURTLE: I rise to continue this Debate under certain difficulties. I went to the Vote Office just now to get a copy of the Bill as it came down from Committee, and was unable to get one. It was only by the courtesy of one of my hon. Friends that I was able to see really how the Bill stands as it came from Committee. At the same time this particular Bill needs very special consideration on its Third Reading, because of something which has taken place between Second Reading and to-night. I refer to the fact that between Second Reading and to-night the Government have made a most momentous announcement. The Government have decided that they are going to deal with this great question of electricity on national lines. Therefore, even if we were prepared on the Second Reading of the Bill, bad though it might be, and of a plundering nature though it was, to approve of the Bill on that occasion, yet in view of that new fact I think we are entitled to consider carefully whether we should give it the Third Reading or not. This has rather shaken my belief in the antiquated forms of this House. I thought that some of those processes through which every Bill has to go were unnecessary, but I can see now the wisdom of having a Third Reading as well as a Second Reading, because something entirely new may have arisen, as it has in this case, between Second and Third Reading, and may be of such a nature as to cause the House to reverse its judgment, as I hope it will to-night.
This Bill conceded certain privileges 'to public companies and we should see that in return for those privileges and concessions we get adequate safeguards. You find if you look at this Bill that we do not get adequate safeguards regarding very material points. I take Clause 26, which says:
Within a period of two years from the passing of this Act as respects any area
within the area of supply not being the area of supply of an authorised distributor in which there is at the passing of this Act a demand for a supply of electricity and a reasonable prospect of such supply being remunerative.
It is very obvious from that that the only obligation which rests upon the company is to provide a supply of electricity in those districts in which there is a reasonable prospect of such supply being remunerative. Therefore in all those other districts in these country places of Scotland where there is not that prospect, I take it the company is not going to bother to lay down transmission lines and carry supplies to those particular people. If we are prepared to give them the profitable spots we ought to insist as a quid pro quo that they should carry power and light to spots which are not profitable. I refer to something which I think should have been inserted in the Committee stage and which I find was not. There is no Clause in the Bill at all conferring power on the local authority to purchase this undertaking at any particular time. I looked this point up in the Stock Exchange Year Book, and in regard to this particular company it is set down for the benefit of possible investors that the company can go on for an unlimited period, making profit out of the privileges and concessions which this House is now about to confer on it. I think if any Bill needs a Clause of this sort inserted this Bill does. In the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, Section (2), provision is made

for the taking over of such undertakings as these by the local authorities. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for hon. Members opposite, if they really wanted to safeguard the interest of the public, to see that such a Clause was inserted in this case, instead of allowing the company to go on for an unlimited period of years making profit for their shareholders. In Clause 27 I find it is provided:
The provisions of the existing Acts and the Acts incorporated therewith shall, so far as these are applicable to the purposes of this Section and subject to the necessary modifications apply to the construction, laying down, erection and maintenance in any streets or roads of any telephone or telegraph posts, wires, conductors or apparatus which the company may, and which they are hereby authorised to erect or lay down for the purposes of their undertaking, but no post shall be erected in any street or road without the consent of the local authority which shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners.
I am anxious to protect the rights of the local authorities—

Mr. YOUNG: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 99.

Division No. 191.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Huntingfield, Lord


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falconer, J.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Ferguson, H.
Kedward, R. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Franklin, L. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. O.


Barclay, R. Noton
Gates, Percy
Laverack, F. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Linfield, F. C.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gorman, William
Lord, Walter Greaves.


Becker, Harry
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Lumley, L. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
McCrae, Sir George


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macdonald Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harland, A.
MacDonald, R.


Brass, Captain W.
Harney, E. A.
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Harvey,C. M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay


Clayton, G. C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hobhouse, A. L.
Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Deans, Richard Storry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Nail, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph


Dodds, S. R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Howard Sury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Phillipps, Vivian



Raffety, F. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Raine, W.
Simpson, J. Hope
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Rathbone, Hugh H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Rea, W. Russell
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Starmer, Sir Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Robertson, T. A.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thornton, Maxwell R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Savery, S. S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Sir Samuel Chapman and Mr.


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Vivian, H.
Ernest Brown.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alstead, R.
Hodges, Frank
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jewson, Dorothea
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stlrling)
Rose, Frank H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royle, C.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Scurr, John


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Clarke, A.
Lansbury, George
Sexton, James


Climle, R.
Law, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Snell, Harry


Dickson, T.
Lee, F.
Spence, R.


Dukes, C.
Loverseed, J. F.
Stamford, T. W.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Lunn, William
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Egan, W. H.
McEntee, V. L.
Thurtle, E.


Foot, Isaac
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
March, S.
Warne, G. H.


Gillett, George M.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Groves, T.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muir, John W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Harbison, Thomas James S.
Murray, Robert
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Nixon, H.
Windsor, Walter


Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wintringham, Margaret


Haycock, A. W.
Perry, S. F.
Wright, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Potts, John S.



Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Raffan, p. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Raynes, W. R.
Mr. Stephen and Mr. Nichol.


Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

EX-RANKER OFFICERS.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but I feel I am bound to ask the attention of hon. Members for a little while to the
case of the pensions which have been paid to certain ranker officers. On 13th March, on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker, do now leave the Chair," on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) moved as an Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hackney seconded
That in the opinions of this House professional Ranker Officers of the Army should receive equal treatment as regards retired pay or pension."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2640, Vol. 170.]
The suggestion of the Prime Minister on that occasion was agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Baldwin). It was that the whole question should go to an independent Committee of three presided over by our old friend Mr. George Barnes. That was accepted by
220 votes to 201, or rather the Amendment was rejected with these figures. The Committee reported against the plea of these gentlemen. Several of us have tried since to get an opportunity to discuss this matter in this House. The Government have said: "Oh, no, it went to a Committee, the Government accepted the Committee's Report, and, therefore, the incident is closed." I do call particular attention to this—and I go back again to the Debate on 13th March, and I must make two quotations. The Prime Minister in mentioning his suggestion that the matter should go to an independent Committee made this statement:
The case is not quite straightened out. It is not quite clear. Many ex-parte statements have been made. These need to be sifted and carefully weighed before being finally concluded. How many have been? None! Under these circumstances the House will consult business if nothing else, the best business way of doing its work if it will agree that the whole matter should come before an authoritatively agreed committee—
Then these words follow, and with this the Prime Minister sat down:
So that this House can act upon whatever report the Committee presents to it.
I am asking that the House should have an opportunity of acting upon the Report. The Leader of the Opposition in concurring with the proposal to refer it to an independent Committee said:
It will be invaluable for this House to have this matter sifted by an expert Committee. The result of their investigations and the evidence on which they base their conclusions will come before this House in their report. We shall then, all of us, be in a far better position than we should be after a couple of hours' debate to decide what is the best thing to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2666, Vol. 170.]
When are we going to get a chance of deciding? There can be no doubt that the reference of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition gave many Members who voted for it the belief that they would have an opportunity of determining the issues which are now, as I say, undetermined.
May I now say a few words on the merits of the case. My opinion is—I have gone into it with great care—that the Barnes Committee rejected the plea of the ranker officers not so much on its own intrinsic merits, but because they felt
that if they granted this plea there would be all sorts of consequential claims which the Treasury would be compelled to meet. May I read one paragraph of the Report to support my claim—
It has to be remembered that if on grounds of special merit or hardship express conditions are to be set aside in favour of one particular class it would be by no means easy to refuse a hearing to any other class, who, admitting that their conditions as to pay and pension had been fulfilled might plead that special merit or hardship made it proper that the conditions should be modified in their favour.
In my opinion the hardship and the urgency of this case—and it is quite unique in its hardship—would undoubtedly have been met if it were not for the fact that people were afraid that other consequential claims would be made which might land the State in a large sum of money. What is the case of these gentlemen? When the war broke out there was a difficulty in securing proper training for the new battalions, and here were these gentlemen, retired non-commissioned and warrant officers of the Army. Urgent request were made to them to come forward and give, at a moment's notice, their lifelong professional services in helping to train the new battalions. They came. The Barnes Committee makes this rather interesting reference on that point—
We may say in passing that we accept the view put forward on their behalf that morally and practically they had in some cases little choice but to accept.
Let it go at that. They went on drawing their non-commissioned pensions of 25s. and 30s. a week. They got the pay of their rank, being given temporary commissions. At the close of their service they got the gratuity paid to temporary officers and they are then told: Go back to your 25s. or 30s. a week pension. They received no addition to their pension whatever in respect of their commissions for war service. Here you have these gentlemen, under pressure in many cases, as admitted by the Barnes Committee. They go up to the status and responsibility and expenditure of officer rank, many of them remain in that rank for a considerable time, they reach the position of commanding battalions in the field in some cases, in some cases they even reach field rank, and there is no question as to whether they discharged their duty.
Having been on that status they go back to 25s, or 30s. a week. I have always held that you could not take these highly specialised officers, and then say: "We have done with you; go back to your old non-commissioned officer pension." Some addition must be made to their pensions in respect of their commissions, and they claim retired pay at the minimum rate of £150 a year. It is pointed out that the Army Council did give in March, 1918, temporary commissions to certain noncommissioned officers raised from the ranks and the answer now given to the House is that that was due to the critical need of Chat time. These men retired at the minimum officers' rate of £150 a year although their commissions were temporary. The answer is really disingenuous because some of the cases in 1918, being given temporary commissions and finally retired on officers' pay did not get this temporary commission till about the armistice.
The case of the Royal Marines is well known and it is precisely a similar position. They got temporary commissions, and were temporarily retired on the minimum officers' rate of £250 a year. I see that the Barnes Committee rejected the claim because of its possible ultimate reaction in a system which they said was "honeycombed with anomalies." According to that you have only to make your anomalies numerous enough and then you cannot remove any of them. That is a most disquieting doctrine and a very strange one. A deputation of the Members of this House met the late Secretary of State exactly a year ago, and I made then a suggestion of a small character ad hoc to avoid all these comparatively consequential cases. It was that you ought to give these gentlemen £8 a year for every year or part of a year of their commissioned service and add that to their pensions. The total cost would be about £80,000 the first year and would be a diminishing amount, and capitalised it would mean about £500,000 a year. Let me read Lord Derby's reply on that point. On 27th July he said in reply to those of us who came to him,
You will remember Dr. Macnamara made a suggestion on a rather smaller scale. I should like very much to have met him if I could. It has the merit of being considerably less expensive, but even Dr. Macnamara's proposal would cost about half a million pounds, and I am afraid the pro-
vision of that sum of money is too serious to contemplate.
You cannot ride off on that. You really have to go into the merits of the case. I made a similar request to the Government. I cannot ask for time to discuss this now at this period of the Session, with so many other urgent preoccupations, but I want, in view of what the Prime Minister said, to ask if the Government will undertake to give us an opportunity—and the House was clearly led to expect it—for discussing this matter when we meet again in October? It is intolerable that gentlemen who have held high command and responsible positions, and have been put on the scale of expenditure of commissioned officers, should have to go back, in order to keep their wives and families on 25s. or 30s. a week, and take up labourer's work or casual work for which they are entirely unfitted and unequipped, or, if they do not do that, become submerged by poverty. I put this request to the Government: Can we have an assurance that we shall, as a House of Commons, be allowed to discuss this matter when the House meets in October?

Major STROTHER STEWART: I crave the indulgence which the House always generously extends to Members who rise to address it for the first time, and I promise that, at this very late hour, my remarks shall not be very long. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of making my first speech in this House on behalf of those who have served this country, and whom I believe to have been somewhat badly treated. There are only some 2,500 of them, and no one can exaggerate the value of their services. One thing that we want to avoid, in dealing with those who have served this country during its crisis, is that they should suffer any feeling of unfairness. These men find that others in similar circumstances are getting retired pay at a rate which enables them to live in a similar position to that which they occupied while they were in the Army. Take the man who completed his 18 years' service during the War, when actually serving in the field, and was promoted from non-commissioned rank to full commissioned rank, before Army Order 159 of the 7th May, 1918, was issued. That man has to revert to the ordinary pension of a soldier, while others of similar rank who happen to have served a few days
extra to him, though probably not so long altogether, and who were promoted after the 7th May, 1918, actually receive retired pay at double the rate that he gets.
Such things are bound to cause a great feeling of unfairness in the minds of these gallant men. It is all very well to say, as the Commissioners said, that they are simply getting that which they contracted for. It means that these men who, at the call of patriotism, without any idea of extracting a favourable bargain from the country, came forward at their country's call, are to be penalised, whereas they should be on an absolute equality with others who served under similar conditions. This gives the Government a chance to give a generous gesture to those who served our country, and whom already we are beginning to forget. There is a great deal in what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) as to the reversion of these men from a, position of a certain amount of financial stability which they occupied during the War. It is to their credit that they did accept the position of commissioned officers when it was offered to them, and it is very wrong and very unfair to them that they should have to revert to an entirely different status. We all agree that it is a bad and cruel thing that anyone should live in a position of discomfort and poverty, but it is crueller to raise people from that position and then thrust them back into it again. There should be no question of dealing with these men on cold legal points. There is far too much of that, not only in this connection, but also in connection with all sorts of restrictions as far as pensions are concerned. We want to look upon these men for what they did, and we cannot deal too generously with them. Many Members of the Government, unfortunately, misled these men to expect that when they came into power they would fulfil certain promises made to them. It is often said that the Government are in office, but not in power, but on this question there is not a shadow of doubt that if they wished to fulfil those promises they could rely on an absolute majority of the House of Commons. I support the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell in asking the Govern-
ment to give us an opportunity of voting and coming to a decision on this question.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member opposite on making his maiden speech in such a sterling cause, and I hope he will continue to speak for such causes for the rest of the time he is in the House. I should like to ask the Minister of War how it comes about that the Admiralty treat their ranker officers so much better than does the Army. I have a statement here, showing that the Navy and Marines enlisted 20,000 pensioners during the War, and the Army 50,000. The Admiralty treated their men generously indeed, I think. When they retired they retained their rank, and the temporary officers in the Navy and Marines get £250 to £300 a year, where the temporay officer in the Army gets £75; a sergeant-major in the Navy and Marines gets £150 to £180, and in the Army £80 to £100; a colour-sergeant, £105 and £75 respectively; a sergeant, £95 and £65 respectively; a corporal, £75 and £59 respectively; and a private £60 and £47 respectively. I want to ask the War Minister how it is that the Navy can get that through, and his office cannot. I know the War Minister is a very kindly man indeed—I have met him on these committees—and I ask him seriously to consider the state of these Army men and compare it with that of their comrades in the sister Service. Our men in the Navy and Marines are treated very much better, and why should not those who came forward and helped to train the Army in the early days of the war get proper treatment? I think it ought to be gone into very carefully. If it were put to a vote, I am sure that every Member of the House who served in the war would come out and vote for equal and fair dealing with the ex-ranker officers.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): I have some difficulty in making up my mind as to what particular point in this discussion to tackle. I am told by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) that he only wants a promise that in the latter part of this Session the matter shall be discussed.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Prime Minister's undertaking.

Mr. WALSH: The undertaking given to the House by the Prime Minister was that a committee should be appointed, and that upon the report of that committee action should be taken.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister was as follows, if the OFFICIAL REPORT be right:
The whole matter should come before an authoritatively agreed committee, so that this House can act upon whatever report the committee present to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2665, Vol. 170.]

Mr. WALSH: I will accept that Report—"an authoritatively agreed Committee." Therefore, first of all, it is appointed with authority, and it makes a report, distinctly, that the claim put forward by the ex-ranker officers is not sustained.
It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman and every one of his suporters that the War Office acted perfectly in accordance with every obligation.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Legal.

Mr. WALSH: There is not a single point of any obligation under Army Orders or Regulations in respect of the pay, gratuities or emoluments of these men that the War Office, has not carried out. The whole case of these ranker officers is that there has been no breach of faith on the part of the War Office. It is submitted, however, that these men have a special claim. I have failed to find where their special claim comes in. If it were admitted that they have a special claim for the additional emoluments now claimed I agree entirely with the report of the Committee that there are thousands, tens of thousands, of others who have equally good claims. It is said by my right hon. Friend, in a free and easy way, that the mere fact that the claims could be multiplied indefinitely ought to be no argument against the granting of this claim which, admittedly, is not based upon any breach of obligation. I do not know where that kind of argument will lead us.

Dr. MACNAMARA: To justice.

Mr. WALSH: To justice! It is admitted that no injustice has been caused. There
is no injustice. It may be said that there is hardship. Is there no hardship in hundreds of thousands of cases that take place? Can you have a war without anomalies? What is the use of saying that because there are anomalies, there is no reason why they cannot be rectified? You cannot rectify all of them, it is utterly impossible.
These men knew perfectly well what their pay and their gratuities were to be. The scale of gratuities had been fixed in 1907, and was in the Army warrant of that year, and every one of these men, who put in a signed application for their commission, knew that. We are not dealing with people who did not know what they were undertaking; we are dealing with people who knew perfectly well what were the conditions of the engagement upon which they were entering. The plea of a good deal of simplicity on the part of these men is being put forward.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: These men could not bargain with the War Office. They have served their country, and they depend on you to look after their interests.

Mr. WALSH: There was no compulsion upon any single one of these men to accept these temporary commissions. In every case, without exception, a signed application had to be made asking for a temporary Commission. In every case they knew the conditions of their appointment. They knew the amount of the gratuities they could look forward to. The conditions of the Army Warrant of 1907 had been in existence for years. They were not entering upon anything of which they did not understand all the conditions. I am asked how it is that the Admiralty have treated their men in such a generous way as compared with the Army. That is not a question for me to answer. I am only responsible at the moment for one particular department, and in that department it is admitted by everybody that every condition has been honourably observed. In such circumstances, what am I to say when a debate is raised in this manner? It was agreed by the House that there have been, I will not say misleading statements, because I do not want to use a provocative expression. In any case we all admit that there was a great deal of misunderstanding. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Rear-Admiral SUETER: I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether he would give an opportunity of debating this this point and the Lord Privy Seal said that an opportunity would be given. So the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain that no opportunity has been given him.

Mr. WALSH: I am not complaining that no opportunity has been given.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: You did.

Mr. WALSH: No, what I was saying is that at the very beginning of this Session there was a great deal of misunderstanding as to what was the character of the ex-ranker officer's claims, and the general basis upon which they were founded. Answers were given to hon. Members in every section of the House who were properly desirous of carrying out their pledges. But in carrying out election pledges every Member of this House is interested in finding out what, after all, were the conditions in which the pledges were given. [Laughter.] This is not at all a laughing matter. When the Prime Minister himself made a similar statement in this House, is was received with applause. Everybody knows of the whirlwind of missive that come from north, south, east and west on Members during an election period, and everyone knows the impossibility of Members giving full attention to the answers to those communications in all circumstances.

Major KINDERSLEY: I never gave a single pledge in the Election. That is the honest way.

Mr. WALSH: It saves candidates and would-be members a great deal of trouble. However, I will not carry that point any further, except to say that consequent upon the misunderstanding resulting from that particular cloud of election communications, and the impossibility of giving anything like carefully considered replies to such communications this Committee was set up. It is an authoritative Committee. It has reported upon the facts that have been presented. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the evidence, I agree with him that the full report of the evidence should be laid before the House. I regret that the full report of the evidence is not in the hands of all Members. But it shall be in their hands in a week or two. The fact that they have not
received it yet is not due to any act or delay on my part. But here is a case in which it is admitted that the War Office has carried out every obligation into which it has entered.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Legal obligation.

Mr. WALSH: And moral obligation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What is the foundation for the exclamation "Oh!"?

Mr. KEDWARD: What about the Government's pledge?

Mr. WALSH: These men knew perfectly well what to expect. They are not simpletons. As a rule they are very well educated men. They knew as clearly as daylight what conditions they were accepting. The Committee merely says that, so far as they are concerned, they are prepared to accept the statement that morally, they had no alternative except to accept these commissions.

Mr. J. HARRIS: They did not stop to inquire.

Mr. WALSH: I protest against the idea that these 2,500 officers have a higher percentage of bravery and patriotism than any of the millions who enlisted.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Who suggested it?

Mr. WALSH: The whole of the conditions have to be complied with. The authoritative Committee which was set up has reported against their claim, and that, indeed, is not denied.

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is.

Mr. WALSH: Every paragraph of the Report of the Committee, which went most carefully into the matter, is dead against the claim of these ranker officers. It is held to be not a claim legally established or morally established. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I cannot understand on what particular ground you can establish a moral claim for these men against tens of thousands of others.

Mr. KEDWARD: The Government pledge.

Mr. WALSH: What Government pledge?

Mr. KEDWARD: The. Prime Minister's.

Mr. WALSH: My right hon. Friend was not the Prime Minister and there was no
Labour Government when this pledge was given.

Mr. KEDWARD: You were asking the country to return you to power when the pledge was given.

Mr. WALSH: How many of the Members on these Benches gave the pledge?

Mr. B. SMITH: I gave that pledge and I gave it in the name of my party. I gave it with every intention of honouring it, and I stand by it.

Mr. WALSH: As a matter of fact, no individual member of any party can give a pledge binding his party; he can only give a pledge binding himself.

Captain BERKELEY: The Prime Minister, the Leader of the party, gave the pledge.

Mr. WALSH: An individual member of a party can only give a pledge binding himself. There was no Labour Government in existence at the time my right hon. Friend gave the pledge. So far as that is concerned, if we went into the conditions of the questionnaire extracting that pledge we should find, I think conclusively, that while perhaps it is not deliberately intended to mislead, the implication left upon the minds of anyone reading it would be something exactly contrary to the facts. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to this matter—that the Armistice was concluded on 11th November, 1918, that the very first moment the claim of the ex-ranker officer is submitted is two years later and it would never have come into existence at all, had it not been for the fact referred to by my right hon. and gallant friend who spoke earlier. In one sentence I conclude. The report of this authoritative Committee is dead against the claim of the ex-ranker officers. I have no power to carry it any further; the Cabinet have fully considered every paragraph and have gone most carefully into the whole report and they have decided to accept the report in its entirety.

Roar-Admiral SUETER: On a point of Order. The Secretary of State for War cannot answer my question which relates to the Admiralty, but I see the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in his place. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House how
it is the Admiralty can grant pensions and the War Office cannot.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I do not propose to introduce into this Debate a single word of bitterness, if I can avoid dong so, and I do not desire to create any ill feeling, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War of the exact terms of the Prime Minister's pledge. It is true the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald) was not then Prime Minister, but ho was the leader of the Labour party, and he made a promise on behalf of the Labour party. Now I will part from that subject. This is far too serious a question for these men, who are rapidly disappearing year by year, to be dealt with in that spirit, and I propose to fix myself on a statement made by the Secretary of State which I took down. He said:
They knew the conditions perfectly well. They were laid down in the regulations.
What are those conditions? They are set out in the War Office memorandum issued in support of the Prime Minister's view that he has been misled. They have not varied for years, and they deal with two subjects—first the officer who is called up to serve again, and second the pensioner who is re-enlisted during a time of national crisis and who is entitled to draw pension with full pay. I believe if the ex-ranker's case has been lost before the Committee it is because they did not put their real point and the real strength of the case before the Committee, but proceeded on a matter which, to my mind, did not affect them in the least, namely, what some other people had got. I was fighting on another point in this matter, and I reluctantly gave way and fell in with the proposal of the Prime Minister, when my own idea was to take the vote of the House on this subject and that for a very strong reason What I wish to point out is this, and I make this challenge to the right hon. Gentleman: before the War there never was such a thing as a temporary officer. You could have an officer with the acting rank of adjutant and sometimes as major, but you could never have a private acting as an officer. These men could never have been called upon to rejoin, and an officer could. I think I am right in saying that a warrant officer could, but a non-commissioned officer could not. There is
here a clear case of re-enlistment, and in the forefront of the case that was skilfully drawn up and well considered to support the view that the Prime Minister had taken it is stated that a pensioner re-enlisting during a time of national emergency may draw his pension in addition to his pay during the period of his service, but he shall not receive any addition to his pension in respect of such service. That is clear as long as he remains a, private soldier. But I again challenge the Secretary of State for War to point to a case of a private who has ever before held acting rank as an officer.

Mr. WALSH: Did I refer to a private holding the acting-rank of an officer? I said distinctly that the scale of gratuities that these gentlemen knew of when they were accepting a temporary Commission was the scale of gratuities that had been fixed in the case of territorial Officers, and in the case of civilians accepting officer rank in 1907. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with a point entirely different. They knew their gratuities. These gratuities are very much bigger than any gratuities given to the regular officer, and they knew the scale laid down in 1907.

Sir G. HOHLER: I cannot allow the Secretary for War to escape from the challenge I am making. He says that these pensioners knew their conditions perfectly well, and they were laid down in the Warrant of 1907. I say they did not and could not, because at that time, and until this war broke out, no such rank as that of temporary officer ever existed in regard to a private enlisting in His Majesty's service. Therefore, I want to show to him how weak is his excuse. What does he have to introduce? The Territorial officer. That had nothing to do with a private. Then what does the right hon. Gentleman go on to say? He introduces the word "civilian." These men were not civilians. They were Army pensioners, and there was an express provision made that they should re-enlist. I make no complaint as to their rejoining. I would have made no complaint if they had been left in their non-commissioned rank. But the men of whom I am speaking are men who gave valiant service. One I know, a lieut.-colonel in the Warwickshires, got the D.S.O. Let us
see what the War Office statement says, This is what they say. On page 5, paragraph 10, this is what the War Office say:
It has been alleged that the men did not know what Commissions they were being offered.
The War Office answer is that
in every case an application was made for a temporary Commission.
Yes, but there was at that time nothing in the War Office regulations in regard to temporary commissions when these men were called up. Then the War Office circular goes on to say: "And the men knew that the pension could not be increased by temporary service as a soldier, and they had no ground for thinking it could be increased by temporary service as an officer. Did you ever hear such an argument? These men who served in the ranks and were subsequently put up in command, surely they would not be expected to anticipate getting merely the same payment as they would have had as private soldiers. They were doing training work at home and were doing splendid service. One of them rose to the great distinction of Lieutenant-Colonel. May I not put it in this way? Was it not a blot on the War Office that these men should never have risen to such a position before? We are told that these men sent in signed applications for temporary commissions and that they knew that the pension would not be increased by temporary service. Also that they had no ground for thinking it would be increased by temporary service as an officer. Why did not the War Office go further and say to these men: "We told you when you were enlisted that you would only get the pay of your rank when you left"?
12 M.
It cannot be right. It is as wrong as wrong can be. Now let us see what happened afterwards. The Committee to whom the matter was referred found as a fact that in substance these men had no option but to sign these agreements, and, all in the commotion of war, with things changing every day, they did not know, and they were not informed. Then came a period of grave anxiety—the gravest in the war—the final German advance in 1918. What did you then do? You could not get officers except in one way, and you said to certain soldiers who were serving, not as volunteers but on attestments: "Resign your position, take a commission as an officer, and we will give you tem-
porary rank which shall cease at the end of the war, and we will then give you a pension on certain conditions." You did that. Do you not think that these men, who bad been serving you at the Front since 1914, are just as well worthy of consideration as men equally gallant, I doubt not, but who, on the request of the country, resigned their position as privates and took commissioned rank in May, 1918? I am only asking for these men the same conditions as for the others.
I think the right hon. Gentleman, and the Committee took a wholly wrong view of what their functions were in this matter. I am satisfied that the generosity of this House would have awarded to these men the same reward that any other men would have got, if we had only had a Division that night. I am, only speaking on behalf of these men, and I should not have cared so long as we were willing to pay the money. If we were willing that it should be paid, who could object—and we should have been willing. This Report dealt with the case on the basis of a legal claim; but do you suppose that if we had had a legal claim I should have troubled to raise this question in the House? We should have got it out of you somehow. It was because we knew that we had not a legal claim that these questions were put at the election, and that is the reason why we are raising it in this House. All that we have said—all that I at any rate have said—on behalf of these men, is that they have not had justice, and when I point to what happened in 1918 I say the injustice is apparent. I do not want to appeal to any other injustice or any emoluments that other men have got. I say, "Good luck to them," but I want the same for these men. Under the Pay Warrant of May, 1918, when these men resigned their service as privates and took commissions, the pay and pension that they took did not differ largely from what the ranker officer—I know the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean by that term—took. It was a matter of, I think, some £10. The ranker officer whose case I am now putting forward would have got about £70 a year, and, under the first Warrant, what I call the 1918 commissioned officers would have about £80. It was not very much of a trouble, and the question did not really arise until the Pay Warrant of September, 1919, which, to my
mind, was the secret of the whole injustice. That document—it was Army Order 324—in substance recites that, having regard to the increased cost of living, the pay and pensions of all officers would be increased. It is immaterial, therefore, that advance to the regular officer. But when we come to the officer of 1918, to whom I have referred—I think the right hon. Gentleman follows me—what do we find? Under Regulation 4, Table 16, Army Order 321, the gratuities on retirement of officers commissioned from the ranks during the Great War, as shown in Article 572A of the Pay Warrant, will be increased 50 per cent. Why any distinction between the pensioner who had served since 1914, and the man who had been serving a short time at March, 1918? There is our injustice, our grievance! I see it! I can feel it! It is as clear as can be! The Warrant goes on to say that the retired pay shall be £150 instead of £80. What about that! Take the case of a lieutenant-colonel, a D.S.O., who fought with his regiment on the ridges in France. They were splendid, all of them—officers and men! What has he got? He is brought under the same warrant of September, 1919 Army Order 325, Table 5, which says that a man has to have an increase of a halfpenny per day. Take the higher increase—that would be Class I—including warrant officers under Class II—it is 2d. a day. That cannot be right. I do protest. We knew we had no legal claim. If we had had, do the Government suppose that there are Members of this House capable of getting it? There is no doubt about it! Our case, in my humble judgment, is the best case that has ever been been put before the House. How can you reconcile this treatment of these men who gave up so much to serve their country and have given equally fine service, who returned to the Army, who enlisted at our request, and who knew nothing of the difference in the rank of temporary captain or lieutenant as between themselves and the regular officer. We are told in a letter drawn up by the War Office that they must have known it. I say they must not have known it. I say in all honesty—I should not have known it myself. But had I been distinguished enough to be promoted I should have been at the trouble to inquire. I dare say I should have been satisfied with that and said I trusted my country. It
is all wrong. Then in your troubles you would do anything for the man who tried to anticipate your troubles and serve you. Now you will do nothing. I do not mean you. I know the difficulties of things. But that is a way it strikes these men. It is bitterness and gall to them. I know that those for whom I speak would be glad to do it. We do not want to exact the uttermost farthing. All we want is a fair and reasonable pension. Then comes the galling blow ender that warrant of 1919 a man who was promoted to commissioned instead of private rank in May, 1918, and may never have seen a battle after it, is drawing a pension of £150 instead of £80. What is my Lieut.-Colonel drawing? £70, plus 2d. a day. I submit that I have made out a case on behalf of these men that the Government should honour, and I believe, if the Prime Minister had been here, he would have been pleased to say "after all, when I made my promise I was right. I fell into an error subsequently through no fault of mine, but I will honour it now and I will do right to these men." I trust he will do so and, if not, some other means will be taken on a later occasion to raise the point again and take the sense of the House.

Captain BERKELEY: The speech of the Secretary of State, delivered on 4th August, 1924, 10 years after the outbreak of the War which has led to the case which is now being brought before the House, will strike astonishment and dismay into the minds of all those who are seeking to defend the fighting services. I certainly did not expect, and I think no other Member of the House expected, that the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown himself on other occasions very sympathetic towards the claims of the fighting men, would have dismissed so summarily this very valid claim. It is a matter of extreme surprise to myself and my friends that he should have brushed it aside and based himself so legalistically upon the Report of the Committee. I take a particular interest in the case, because it was my privilege to raise the matter on a previous occasion when the Committee was appointed. I rejected the idea of a Committee and divided the House on the question. My reason for doing so was because I feared precisely what has come to pass, that if this matter
were put before a Committee the Committee would consider itself bound by the purely legal view of the case and would not be able to import into the matter those considerations of moral claim and generosity which the House of Commons would have brought into it as a matter of course. Is not that precisely the attitude the Committee has felt itself bound to adopt? There has never been any contention that there was a legal claim on behalf of these men. When I outlined their case in March last I opened by saying there was no legal claim. I will put two points of criticism which I hope the House will accept. In the first place it ill became the State after profiting by the help and aid of this class of men to rely upon a purely local view of the case. My second point is that where a promise had been given by a party in the name of a party which subsequently came to occupy the high position of governing the country, even if that promise had been lightly given, it ought to be kept. I urged at the time that the documentary evidence showed that the promise had not been given quite so lightly. The Prime Minister wrote a letter in specific terms. I quoted that letter on a previous occasion and I will quote it again now.

Sir G. HOHLER: As a matter of fact a letter was published and printed in which the Prime Minister said the letter was sent out as a questionnaire in that year.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: That letter never came before the party and it was an individual letter.

Captain BERKELEY: The difficulty in dealing with this question is that you have to make up your mind which is the party. There was then the Parliamentary Labour party, the Independent Labour party, and the Trade Unionist party. My hon. and gallant Friend commanded a battalion in the war, and I should have thought from what he saw of the work of the troops he would have had more sympathy for those for whom we are trying to obtain this concession.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I have as much sympathy for them as you have, and I did quite as much as you did during the war.

Captain BERKELEY: I do not put this matter forward in any controversial
spirit. I was pointing out that there is the Parliamentary Labour party, the Independent Labour party, the Trade Unionist party, and other parties similarly organised, and you cannot expect the headquarters of an organised body of men seeking to redress a grievance to go behind the word of the leader of their party. The Prime Minister at the time was the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and he was accepted by the country as the spokesman of the Labour party, and he wrote this specific letter:
I am much obliged by your letter with the enclosed questionnaire. You can depend upon the Labour Party doing everything it possibly can in the House of Commons to carry out the four principles of your questionnaire with which both they and I are in hearty agreement.
That was not the Prime Minister's first letter on this subject, because in the previous June he wrote:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th inst. We have been interested in this subject all along and will continue fighting for this until something is done.
If I may return to the findings of the Committee, this is the difficulty. The two points which I put to the House on the last occasion were, firstly, the question of treating these men generously; and, secondly, when a party is pledged to a certain thing, that pledge ought to be kept. Neither of those considerations has been taken into account by the Committee at all, and the Committee has proceeded purely on the War Office legal view. At the end of their report they passed a vote of thanks to the gentleman from the War Office who attended before the Committee, and put the War Office point of view. I am not blaming the Committee for doing that. I expected it, and for that reason I objected to the appointment of the Committee in the first place. Almost at the beginning of their report, they repeated the entirely fallacious argument put forward by the War Office in its memorandum, the argument that if you conceded the claim of these men, how were you going to resist the claim of commissioned officers who were promoted to major-generals, or of privates who were promoted to sergeants? Like my hon. friend opposite, I regret that something was not done on behalf of the rankers by their representatives to meet that point. It is not, in fact, a point at all. It is a pure superficiality.
The argument put forward is that if you concede to these ex-rankers the retired pay which they are claiming, then you must give a major-general's pension to every captain who took the temporary rank of major-general during the War, and has now reverted to his captain's rank. Was there ever a special Army order or notice that one class of captain on promotion to major-general should get the pension of a major-general and another class of captain, who had the misfortune of being so much superior, that they were promoted beforehand should not have the pension? It is a ridiculous piece of superficiality. It is an argument that would not impose upon a child, and how it came to be put into cold print and reiterated so as to become the whole burden of this report, passes my comprehension.
The whole case of these ex-ranker officers stands, as we have always contended, alone. If you admit the case of these ex-rankers, you do not open the door to every other kind of consequential claim. You are levelling up, as the first point of the questionnaire made plain, 2,500 men, who happen to be in a ruck by themselves, with 50,000 men who are happily well off. That is the whole claim these men have put forward. I do submit to the Secretary of State for War that he ought to reconsider his decision. I perfectly understand, when he is being badgered on all sides, his showing a little heat, and allowing his irritation with interrupters to carry him a way into making disparaging remarks about the ex-rankers, but I want him, before this Debate is over, to withdraw those remarks.

Mr. WALSH: Did I make any disparaging remarks? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman quote one? What I desired to establish was this: In my opinion, while I would give to these gallant men all the credit to which they are entitled, I really cannot see that they have a moral claim because of greater gallantry than anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said so."]

Captain BERKELEY: If the word "disparagement." is the wrong word to use. I gladly withdraw it. I do not mean to say that the Secretary of State for War disparaged the gallantry of these men, but he did disparage their claims. What the right hon. Gentleman
said was, "It is all very well for you to say these men came forward in a fine spirit of self-sacrifice to help the country. Perhaps they did, but they knew what they were about, and signed specific applications for commissions. They knew what they were doing." Nothing of the kind. Read the report of the Committee. I say that is the kind of statement—I will withdraw the word "disparagement," if that is objected to—that ought not to remain uncorrected. The Committee, in paragraph 9 of their report, state:
We may say in passing that, we accept the view put forward on their behalf that, morally and practically they had, in most cases, little choice but to accept.
Is that a case of the free rushing forward to grasp these commissions which the Secretary of State for War requests the House to believe is the real truth of the matter? Nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give credit where credit is due, and not take away the credit from them of having come forward, without considering what reward they were to get, because the country was in an hour of great peril. I will read this extract from paragraph 10—
it was pointed out to us that many men took temporary commissions because they were induced to do so by their superior officers, and in the hour of the country's need, few troubled overmuch to examine the full financial implications of their re-engagement. There is no doubt truth in these contentions.
And then creeps in the influence of the previous White Paper, and the Committee, I am sorry to say, seek to take away from the public spirit in which these ex-rankers acted. I conclude by asking the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. We have asked him to give us an opportunity of discussing this report. Surely the points that have been put forward in the very learned speech by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Camberwell and the few remarks of my own on the points which the report has not taken into account show him that there is a case to be debated, and on which the House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of coming to a decision.
May I remind him of what the Leader of the Opposition said when he induced
sufficient of his followers to vote with the Government to prevent the Motion being carried. It was a very near division, and the Government was saved only by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin). Therefore, the Government ought to be most scrupulous to carry out any undertaking implied in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This is what he said. He accepted the idea of the Committee. He said it would be invaluable for this House to have the matter sifted by an independent Committee. He continued:
The result of their investigations and the evidence on which they base their conclusions will come before this House with their report. We shall then all of us be in a far better position than we would be after a couple of hours debate to decide what is the best thing to do. If the report should be in favour of making considerable concessions and is adopted it will have to be embodied in an estimate and then can be debated. If the report turns down all the demands of those interested, and if the Government support the Committee, then it will be open to anyone to put down a motion to censure the Government, and in any case we shall get a division upon it.
In view of all that has passed in this Debate, in view of the implied pledge given by the Leader of the Opposition as the price of his support, and in view of what the Prime Minister himself said, I call upon the Secretary for War to give an opportunity to this House in the Autumn Session to debate this matter and take a division upon it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only rise because I think it would be a pity if it went out that there were none of us sitting here above the Gangway who desired that the Government should give time for discussion. So far as I am concerned it is a very old question. This case of the ex-ranker officer came before me a long time ago. I gave my promise because I understood that the party, through the office at Eccleston Square and through the Prime Minister, had pledged their word to the ex-ranker racers. Now that the matter has been discussed all kinds of questions arise. One question that is raised is that there were 4,000,000 men who volunteered. What about them? I never heard that that was said in this House when £100,000 was voted to a number of gentlemen who had no claim what soever to a farthing. The money was voted to them because the House thought they were morally and equit-
ably entitled to it. These men, on the two occasions on which I answered the questionnaire, I thought were entitled to something more than they were legally entitled to because of the circumstances. I do not want to argue that, but only to ask those who argue that the 4,000,000 have not been properly dealt with. Whose fault is that? It is our fault.
If there is any injustice that requires remedying, you cannot get out of it by saying that because you will not do a bigger thing therefore you will not do the smaller. I do not understand reasoning of that sort, and I am one of those who think that the wounded and disabled and their dependants have been abominally treated by this House. I have done my best to raise the matter. I have sat here waiting for the Pensions Ministry Vote to come on. Nobody has called for it. I think that is a standing disgrace to the present House, but that is no reason why you should not do justice in this case. It seems to me there is no answer to it. Any of us who were here on that afternoon know that if the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) had not joined in the appeal we would have carried the Motion and the thing would have been settled there and then. Everybody knows that, and I cannot help thinking that the Secretary of State for War must admit that on that afternoon numbers of Members who intended to go into the Lobby with us went into the Lobby with the Government, feeling sure that the two statements made, one by the Prime Minister and the other by the Leader of the Opposition, that we should have an opportunity of discussing the report would he carried out. Now you have had an inquiry, and we ask that we shall have an opportunity of determining the question. I think it is coming to a pretty fine pass that the Minister can stand at that Box and deny to the rest of the House of Commons the right to have a vote on this subject. I know the Government can say. "Put down a vote of censure." That is a very easy way of getting out of it. They know that people like myself would not want to vote for a vote of censure to turn out the Government on a matter of this kind. The Government, I think, are taking a very mean advantage of this business by putting forward an argument of that kind.
I feel on this matter that the least they can do is to help those of us who have given our pledged word on this matter to have a debate and come to a decision. It is no use saying that there will not be time. There will be plenty of time when we meet again, if we have only the will to do it. It is no use saying that it is only a few people who have pledged themselves. I believe that in this House there are something like 400, and I put it to my friends if it is not true that the bulk of us gave the pledge that is talked about. If we gave that pledge without making ourselves acquainted with what that pledge involved, we are not fit to sit in this House. If I gave a pledge on any subject and in ignorance of what that pledge meant, I am not fit to sit here. It is bad enough to give a pledge when it does not involve the personal livelihood of different men and women, but when it does I think it is an outrage that we should come here and try to get out of it in any way. I know these men are only a handful—2,500. If they had happened to be 200,000 I am sure that the pledge would have been honoured. To me it is a perfect outrage that men should argue that because they are only 2,500 it does not matter. The other argument is that there are so many millions we cannot right any of them. I think that is an admission of weakness that no Government ought to admit. If this country is rich enough to give £100,000 each to two three individuals, rich enough to embark on a great war, it ought to be rich enough to take care of those who are victims of that war, whether they are 1,000 or 200,000. It is for that reason I beg the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Leader of the House ought to be here. It is not a matter for the War Department. It is a matter for the Leader of the House, and he ought to tell us that the Government will give us a day. If the Government adhere to the decision not to give us a day I hope sufficient of us will take whatever measures are necessary to get the day.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: The Minister for War has my entire sympathy as a good man struggling with adversity, because, first of all, he is struggling with the promise made by the Leader of his own party before the General Election. I have no information, but I should not be
surprised if the right hon. Gentleman himself gave the same pledge.

Mr. WALSH: Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend. I gave no such pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was given for him by the Prime Minister."]

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I am very glad to hear that, but every Labour man, every Labour candidate I had anything to do with or that I came near in my small sphere of influence, certainly gave a pledge in the most unqualified way. I know that I was asked to give a pledge, and I refused on the ground that I did not know enough about it and wanted to inquire into the facts. I was told I might do myself a great deal of damage, because, though the men were few in number, they were by their character and services in the war certain to be influential; and if they could be influential against a candidate who refused to answer the question in the way they desired, of course, they could be influential in favour of any candidate who did answer the question in the way they desired. I have not the faintest doubt that the Labour party did itself a very great deal of good by what everybody regarded as an official pronouncement by the Labour party through its recognised leader in favour of these men's case. In my view, a man coming here with an impartial mind and wishing to have his mind made up with facts, the arguments of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) are absolutely unanswerable, and I believe that is the feeling of the entire House.
There were many Members present when this question was raised before, and many Members on this side of the House who went into the Lobby in support of the Government because they were told by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that in any ease after the Committee of Inquiry had ascertained the facts the Report would be before us and that he should give the decision. The Committee was not to decide; the War Office was not to decide; the Minister for War was not to decide. Does the Minister for War imagine that anybody who had the cause of the ex-ranker officer at heart would have been satisfied to let the War Office decide it? Of course not. Or does he imagine the Minister for War would have been allowed to decide it, being as he is in this question at any rate
entirely under the thumb of the War Office? I do not for a minute believe that this decision is the decision of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the decision of those who control his Department. I am afraid I must say who control him in this matter. I cannot believe that any Member of this House of any party could listen to the facts and arguments as they have been put before us by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) and come to any other conclusion than that these men have been not illegally treated—no, they signed a paper and entered into a legal contract—but shabbily treated. The House believes that they have been shabbily treated, and the right hon. Gentleman does so also in his own heart. All we are asking is that this question may be debated in this House in such circumstances as the House can come to a free conclusion upon it. The Prime Minister gave a pledge to that effect. That was a pledge of which he understood the consequences. He allowed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition also to give a pledge and never contradicted him. That was a pledge the Prime Minister understood, and it is those pledges that all of us who are present in this House to-night call upon the Government to redeem, otherwise we shall he grievously disappointed. I for one shall consider it a grave and gross breech of faith if the pledges are not honoured and if the House is not allowed to divide.

Mr. WALSH: I should like to make a statement, with the permission of the House. Upon one thing we are all agreed: that pledges given to this House under definite and open conditions must be carried out. I am not the master of the time of the Government in any sense whatever. The Leader of the House is not here; the Prime Minister is not here but I am quite sure he will give the very fullest consideration to the representations made in respect first of all of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition The whole of this discussion will come before the Prime Minister, probably tomorrow morning. I shall certainly see to it that his attention is directed to it at the first possible moment, with a view to carrying out whatever pledges have been given. Upon that it will be for him to determine as to whether, in the coming
portion of the Session, he will be able to apportion a day for a discussion of the whole subject. I will myself lay before him fully the character of the pledges which, it is said, were given, so that he can for himself determine the action to be taken. I cannot add anything further at this moment. I will lay before the Prime Minister to-morrow morning all that has been said in respect of pledges this evening, and, of course, he will decide such action as he thinks right to take.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I only intervene to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take care to represent to the Prime Minister that, without dissent in this discussion, it is agreed among us that undoubtedly the House gave the vote which it did on the 30th March on the definite understanding, arising out of what the Prime Minister said, that it would come before the House if the Committee turned it down. [Interruption.] After what has happened I think I am entitled to put the point that the right hon. Gentleman should represent the sense of the House, and that significance, of the speeches of all speakers of all parties, including members of his own party, to the Prime Minister with regard to the undertaking which led us to suppose that a debate would take, place if the Committee turned the matter down.

Mr. WALSH: I have already stated that I will lay before the Prime Minister the character of the pledges which were said to be given and the representations given by the Leader of the Opposition oil a previous occasion. I will also tell him that in respect of the desire for a debate in the latter part of the Session there has not been a dissonant voice. I cannot say more.

Mr. PRINGLE: The House is in an unfortunate position. Efforts have been made on many occasions to have this matter raised in order to obtain a direct and honourable decision. Owing to the pressure of other questions, this very important matter has been delayed until this time. Nevertheless, the Government were quite aware that the question was going to be raised. They knew it, was an issue on which all Members of the House felt very strongly and on which they Wished to press their views on the Government, and I think it extremely strange in these circumstances, and I should say wanting in courtesy to the
House, for the Government not to give us the opportunity of discussing it. We recognise that the Secretary of State cannot give a pledge in regard to giving the time of the Government for this purpose, but, under the circumstances, knowing that a request was to be made, it was surely the duty of the Leader of the House to be here so that he could have spoken with authority and satisfied Members on this point. Now we are in the position that we have only a hypothetical pledge. We know that the right hon. Gentleman will put the representation before the Cabinet and the Prime Minister that he has made with all the eloquence and force at his command, but we have no security that when he has made that representation of the views of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member fur the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry-Deans) the, Prime Minister will feel that it is his duty to give that pledge. It is because of the pledge that the matter has arisen, and we are, in the circumstances, very anxious to have something very definite from the Government. This may be the last opportunity we shall have to have something definite from the Government. [Interruption.]

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: He tried to do something more useful, but he is disappointed, like you are!

1.0 A.M.

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member has done so much and has received so little, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that we can put down a Motion. But he knows perfectly well that if a Motion is put down, it will be regarded as a Motion of Censure, and that at once more pressure will he brought, to bear upon hon. Member's above the Gangway to vote for the Government, irrespective of the merits of the case, and some Members below the Gangway will also be influenced. What will be the result? It will not be a vote on the merits of this question. It will not be decided even by the recommendations and arguments of the Committee's Report, hut it will be a question of confidence or no confidence in the Government. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not regard that as an honourable way to decide the question. I think there should be some means of communicating with some responsible member of the Government. It is perfectly true we
do not expect the Prime Minister to be here, but we understand that one of the reasons why we should have a Deputy-Leader of the House, is that we should have someone here to give a decision in the absence of the Prime Minister. That was one of the reasons why we increased the salary of the Deputy-Leader of the House. I know that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put a very strong case against it, but when we knew it was for the purpose of having a member of the Government constantly in touch with the House of Commons and able to give an answer to the House of Commons when a question of this kind arose, we thought it only fair that the Prime Minister should be relieved of the responsibility of being in constant touch with the House. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to do all he can. We accept his assurance but if we neglect the opportunity now of obtaining something stronger we may never have another opportunity. For myself I think it would be a mistake to let this debate conic to an end without the House obtaining a more definite assurance than has been given. I am not going to argue the merits of this question at this time of the morning. The right hon. Gentleman, as is usual, has given the War Office point of view, but so far as I understand from no other quarter of the House has the official point of view been supported. There is therefore a uniformity of view in spite of the report of the Committee. I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not here because undoubtedly the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was one of the cardinal factors in the last debate. It was the speech that moved the Government. We are called the patient oxen for saving the Government, but I do not know what animal to call the Opposition who saved the Government on that occasion by the very definite assurance which was given that this House would have an opportunity of dealing with the matter in the light of the Report. He pointed out perfectly fairly that many Members had given pledges on this matter without fully understanding all the facts He suggested therefore that a Committee should investigate, and that it was the duty of hon. Members to give the
Committee a chance with the assurance that when the Committee had made the investigation, when its Report was available, and if that Report was against the claims of the ex-ranker officers there should be an opportunity for a free vote of the House irrespective of its results. That statement was made in the presence of the Prime Minister and also in the presence of the Secretary of State for War. They accepted that statement. Their silence meant acquiescence, and even if they themselves did not specifically give the pledge their listening in silence was an implied pledge. In these circumstances I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the only course now is to give the undertaking. There is going to be plenty of time in the autumn. What we want is not an ineffective Debate of this kind, in which no vote can be taken; we want a Debate in which a vote can be taken. There should be no difficulty on the part of somebody representing the Government to give the undertaking for such an opportunity for discussion and decision on the part of the House, and I do not think the House should allow this Debate to come to an end without such an assurance.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I think it would be a great pity if the House failed to discharge its duty by sitting all night on behalf of these men. Everybody here scorns willing to see this thing through. It would he a great misfortune if they departed upon the undertaking or partial undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of Stab, for War. Last work the Leader of the House expressed his view quite clearly upon the matter. His reply to a question was
I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's interpretation of the remarks mode in the course of the debate on this subject and I regret I can hold out no hope of facilities being given for a discussion.
It is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman if he adheres to that point of view, will he of exactly the same mind to-morrow when the right hon. Gentleman lays before him the interpretation this House puts upon that Debate. When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed further he said:
That is the interpretation given by the Government to the conclusion stated in the report.
What does the Secretary of State for War offer to-night? He offers to lay
before the Leader of the House the gist of this Debate and to make it clear to the Leader of the House that this House considers that it has a right to discuss this matter. The House was perfectly clear on that before.

Mr WALSH: May I ask the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to this statement? I said that whatever may have been said about other pledges, pledges given in this House under open conditions must, above all things, be carried out. I have pledged my word that I will call the Prime Minister's attention to what has been said about the pledges, that I will report to him the desire of the House to Debate the Report without a dissentient voice. In these circumstances I suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends that the matter might rest there until to-morrow morning. There was nothing hypothetical about that. I have pledged myself to bring the matter to the personal attention of the Prime Minister, and to let him know that there is not a dissentient voice in respect of a discussion on the Report. I can carry that statement no further.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not told us that he himself will support it. That is all I want. He has come as near to that as he can, and I beg to ask him to say that he does support it.

Mr. WALSH: My concluding sentence was that I can carry that matter no further.

Major HORE-BELISHA: With all due deference I do not think that my right hon. Friend followed quite clearly what I was endeavouring to say. It is a matter of very great importance, for this reason, that once the House does get an opportunity of deciding this question it means that these men's claims are granted. We only lost our case by 19 votes, and that upon the clear and specific understanding that there was to be a full discussion. The Prime Minister said in his speech that "before this House comes to a decision about these 2,500 men the House ought to know exactly what it is committing itself to"; and, further, that "when an authoritative Committee has reported the House could act upon the Report which the Committee presented." That is what the Prime Minister said. I want to make that clear in view of what followed. It
embodies the condition upon which the Leader of the Opposition consented to save the Government. Having made it clear, only last week, when we asked for the implementation of that pledge, the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, said that the Government did not place that interpretation upon the Debate. In these circumstances does the Secretary for War really mean that he considers, without any possible doubt, that the Prime Minister will grant a day, because if he does grant this day these men's claims are granted, and the fact that we have sat up so late at night will be amply rewarded? If he does not mean that I and my hon. Friends here are prepared to sit up all night, and I can assure him if he cannot gauge the feeling for himself, these men are going to have their claims, Minister of War or no Minister of War, War Office or no War Office, and the strength of their demand will increase in proportion to the measure in which it is resisted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I confess I cannot rouse the enthusiasm that any of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have in this case. I happen to be one of the few people who are, not pledged to anything in this House outside of being a Socialist, and consequently I am free to act in most things as I desire. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camber well (Dr. Macnamara) waxing eloquent in this matter and denouncing the Minister for War for what he is doing for these men, I could not help remembering how, when he held office, he assessed the life of a child at one shilling a week. I had hoped that the House would have waxed eloquent on much bigger things—the whole question of soldiers' pensions. The Member for North-West Camberwell was a Member of a Government which reduced, without any tribunal or committee, mothers' pensions for their lads who were killed in the War. No protest was then ever raised on the Liberal Benches

Major HORE-BELISHA: Do you say that these men's case should not be granted on that ground.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If you wait and have a little manners—I know you have not much sense—

HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"

Mr. BUCHANAN: I withdraw that. The point I was coming to is this: It is all hypocrisy when a man who only paid a shilling a week for a child comes and demands more money for ex-ranker officers. It is not playing the game. Their own Government reduced the pensions of mothers of soldiers and gave them no tribunal or committee. But while I condemn them and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I expect a new standard from our own. Front Bench, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should give another day. Unless he does that he will get defeated. I do not think that Members on the other side will question this, that things they voted against last year o they have voted for this year, not because there was any change in their views but because a new Government is in office.

Mr. KEDWARD: Does that apply to the Labour party?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not to me.

Mr. SPEAKER: We really must come to the matter in hand.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was going to say this to the Minister for War. While I have no regard for men who do that, I think the. Government will be defeated on the next occasion, and it would be better to get up and say that these men will be given what they ask. Most of our men have given their pledged word. I have not, but I think it would he a much more gracious thing if, instead of giving another day and wasting time, the Minister was to get up and say, during the intervening period, "We have decided to grant these men their demands, even although we think it is wrong, because we have pledged ourselves."

Captain BOWYER: I think the point made by the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was a powerful one. After all, the Deputy-Leader of the House lives quite close by, and a message could be sent to him and in a few minutes the House could be told "Yes" or "No," whether we will have a day. The right hon. Gentleman, when talking about the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT mentioned by the Member for North-West Camberwell referred to the so-called pledges, or words to that effect. But these are definite pledges recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT; statements made, not only by the Leader of the Opposition, but by the Prime Minister himself. They are
in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I should have thought that having heard them read there could be no two opinions as to what they mean. On the other hand, the House has been reminded that only last week definite information was given from the Treasury Bench that the Government hold that no pledge was given. The House does not know where it stands.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: In all quarters of the House there is the feeling that we are not certain that the statements of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition are definitely looked upon as certain, and none of us are willing to give up the Debate unless we are certain. For this reason I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order to get some assurance that this, Measure will be discussed. I hope the Motion will be accepted, so that we may bring the necessary pressure upon the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ant afraid I cannot accept the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I have never heard of the Second Beading of the Appropriation Bill being taken on more than one day.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise to reinforce the arguments put forward by the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He called the attention of the House to a very important point that we have to take into consideration, namely, the whole atmosphere in which the Debate took place. There is a passage in the Prime Minister's speech on 13th March which is relevant. It was a full day's discussion of the question as to whether the House would be wise to ask the Committee or whether it should take an immediate decision. The Prime Minister said:
My suggestion is this: When I saw the position in which this question was—I have no majority; hon. Members opposite have no majority; hon. Member's below the Gangway on this side have no majority. It is impossible for the Government to say We have decided to do so and so, and are putting on our whips and we shall make this question one of confidence. …' I considered how best to approach the matter and I suggested that a Select Committee should be set up drawn from all parties in this House, with an appeal to hon. Members who compose it to sit as severe judges listening to the evidence and coming to an independent decision. That suggestion however, for one reason or another, has been rejected. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Hear, hear!'] I have more faith in some Members than they apparently have in themselves. It was my intention to get
hon. Members for the House of Commons to do their duty and come to an independent decision upon the matter, so that they could guide the whole House as to what its duty was. I suggest now that the thing should be done in a somewhat better way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; col. 2663, Vol. 170.]
There is no way of reading that statement except that this Committee was meant to guide, not merely a small section of the House at 25 minutes past one in the morning, but all parties in the House, so that the whole House could come to a decision. On the matter of the Report, may I be allowed to show that the Committee was unduly guided by the legal point of view and the technical point of view. This is borne out in every section of this Report of the Committee's proceedings. Take paragraph 8. It says:
The present system has, like any system of the sort, its advantages and disadvantages, but it is a coherent and intelligible system and we see no reason to doubt that it was generally understood. Two illustrations will make the working of the system quite clear. A retired Captain taken into employment for the war who rose to the rank of Major-General would receive the pay of Major-General and in addition the retired pay of a Captain. At the end of his period of service his pay of Major-General would, of course, cease, and he would then only receive his retired pay as Captain. A retired Corporal re-enlisting for the war and rising to the rank of Sergeant-Major would receive the pay of Sergeant-Major, and in addition his Corporal's pension. At the end of his period of service his pay as Sergeant-Major would, of course, cease and he would then only receive his Corporal's pension.
All I can say about that is that the present Royal Warrant works in a coherent and intelligible way. In the barracks those who understand it are known as barrack-room lawyers because they are supposed to have technical and expert knowledge. The Committee itself was actuated unduly by technical exports and advisers. Paragraph 15 says:
The decision to grant these favourable terms to a small body of Royal Marines was taken in the summer of 1919. We are satisfied that, but for this decision and also the prior offer to serving soldiers in May, 1918, which is dealt with below, little Of nothing would have been heard of the claim which has been the subject of the present inquiry. It is only right to point out that the appellants who appear before as did not ask for the Marine terms (£250 per annum) but for the terms given in the Army to permanent regular officers. We shall return later to the case of the
Marines and the terms of the offer of May, 1918, but would only say here that in our judgment they did not constitute a sufficient reason for re-opening the question of the status or retired pay of the ex-ranker officers. These had accepted the temporary commission with the pay and prospects attached to it, and, although it is no doubt true that some accepted at the time as a matter of duty without regard to conditions, these conditions must have been fully known to all long before October, 1920. In any case the appellants were in exactly the same position as the civilian and the territorial officer in this respect, and were paid exactly the same gratuity.
Paragraph 17 says:
We proceed to offer some observations on the plea that marine officers are admittedly given better terms than temporary army officers. It is said to be anomalous that there should be such a disparity between the treatment of the officers of the two services. In regard to tins we have to point out that the whole treatment a men and women for war services was honeycombed with anomaly. The greatest of all the anomalies was between those who served in the trenches for 1s. a day in 1914, and those who came in later to positions of comparative comfort and who were paid half-a-dozen times as much. Large numbers of the first were killed and many left dependants but meagrely provided for. The majority of the second came home and were paid substantial gratuities.
I suggest that the report which is meant to guide one to a fair decision outside the purely legal arguments of this kind shows that the Committee was widely moved by technical and legislative arguments. Take paragraph 21:
It was explained to us that in drafting the warrant of 3rd May, 1918, an unfortunate mistake was made. The intention was to restrict the terms offered to combatant officers. The warrant mentioned the combatant corps in which commissions were offered, but did not specify combatant commissions. Sortie six months ago claims to bring the quartermasters—who do not hold combatant commissions—under the warrant were advanced. Legal advice was taken by the War Office, and the legal opinion was to the effect that by reason of the omission of the word 'combatant' in the warrant the claim of the quartermasters appointed after the date of the warrant to the combatant corps specified in the warrant could not be resisted. Accordingly, their claim was allowed. Considerable stress was laid upon this matter by some of the present claimants, but we think it has little direct bearing upon the problem before us.
Any untrained man reading that paragraph must come to that conclusion, and no man desiring to do justice to these men could do otherwise, that this report was unduly technical and legal. We are asked to distinguish between the com-
batant and the non-combatant soldier. Everybody knows quite well it would be quite impossible for many combatant soldiers to do their duty but for the non-combatant soldiers. It was a Regulation up to near the end of the War that physical training non-commissioned officers were kept as long as possible from going into the combatant services in order to train efficiently those who were going out. There was a good deal of ill-feeling about that Regulation. I suggest to the House that paragraph 24 will also bear out the legal and technical point of view. Paragraph 24 is perhaps the most cynical in the report. It says:
Some of the appellants have suffered by virtue of having to relinquish status as well as emoluments, to which, as officers, they have become accustomed, and which carried with it certain rights in civil life. This phase of the matter was put to us with some feeling by one of the witnesses. We do not belittle it. And many of them feel keenly the fact that, after rendering distinguished service in the War, their pensions, even reassessed, is so incommensurate with that service. One officer, who had risen to high rank, finds his pension increased by 8½d. to a total of 3s. 11d. per day. Some have had much difficulty in finding work. We can only express our regret and say that exactly the same lot has befallen many of the officers who had been civilians, or who had been Territorial officers. These have experienced hardship and deprivation just as severe, and have made no claim to higher status or retired pay.
All I can say about this paragraph—because it would require an unlimited military vocabulary—is that this is not merely the language of the legalist but of the Sinites and Pharisees as well. It is a technical and legal report which does not do justice to this body of men. I hope before the House adjourns we shall keep the debate going until the Leader of the House is communicated with on the telephone and informed that Members on all sides of the House have the desire and feeling expressed of 31st March, should be carried into effect.

Mr. HANNON: May I respectfully make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think he has seen in this debate that a very strong feeling exists in this House on the subject. He has gone a considerable distance towards meeting the views of the House. Can he go just a little further and say, what would satisfy hon. Members on the other side of the House, that he would use his personal influence with the Prime Minister
to-morrow to give the House an opportunity of debating this subject? I am quite certain that no right hon. or hon. Member has more sympathy with the ex-ranker in his heart than the Secretary of State. I am perfectly certain that in every opportunity that has presented itself since he came into office he has shown his sympathy with men who served in the War and why he cannot go a little further with this handful of extremely badly-treated men and do justice to them, I cannot understand. I feel sure he could go the whole length, but he is one of those new democratic leaders upon whose shoulders the responsibility of government has descended, and he has fallen into the trammels of bureaucracy. I do not look upon him as a trifler with the views of these men. I look in that part of the. House from which inspiration comes, even to the best regulated Secretaries of State, and I see the finger of the War Office, the finger of the bureaucrat, the finger of the permanent staff holding him and preventing him doing justice. Never has a plea been advanced on the part of any section of the House that ought to have a more telling effect on the Treasury Bench than this appeal to-night. It would probably meet the wishes of the House if the Secretary of State would give us the undertaking that has been suggested, that he should use his personal influence with the Leader of the House to secure to us an opportunity of discussing this question.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: During the three and a-half hours' Debate we have had no speakers whatever who have supported the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was going to give support to him but he changed his mind as he went on. The Minister has had no support whatever, and I do suggest, to use a barrack-room term, that it is time the Leader of the House should "show a leg." We in this House have voted him an extra £3,000 a year, and it is not asking too much to ask him to come across the road from his official residence to give the assurance for which we are asking. We do, of course, accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that he will use his best endeavour, but he knows perfectly well that that is not an official assurance upon which we can
thoroughly rely. It is a significant fact that on this anniversary—the tenth anniversary—of the War that this Debate should have started, and that we should find ourselves in this curious position, that all this time afterwards we should still be asking for justice for these men who did slit h wonderful work in those days 10 years ago. Ten years ago did we stop to look at contracts? The men were needed, and they came forward. They did not hesitate in any way whatever. Now we are told that they are to be held strictly to their legal rights only. My experience of the Army is that nobody expects to be held closely to the word, to the letter, of those Royal Warrants. Those Royal Warrants are not understood by the great majority, and even if they were understood they would take the risk and do what is the right thing, and in my opinion the most striking contribution we have hail to the Debate to-night was that of the hon. and gallant Member who showed the difference in pensions that was being given to our ex-rankers in the Navy and in the Army. I really did not realise those figures before.
No one wants to make any comparison between the two Services—what they did was equally valuable in the War—but I am quite sure no Member of the Navy would ask for a moment that the men of his own Service should be rewarded by pensions up to 50 per cent. more than those awarded to men of similar grading in the Army. The public, when they have these figures put before them, will never agree that this shall be allowed. At the next General Election the electors will certainly hear about what has been said in support of abrogating the pledges made by the Prime Minister. As to obligations, we have heard different opinions. It has been said that these ranker officers were under no obligation to accept this contract. The obligation, in my opinion, was the obligation of patriotism. Let us consider what was the position of a number of men who went out to fight in the War, as regards their employers. We know that the employers of this country came forward generously, and in many cases they paid money—although they were getting no benefit from the work of these men because they had gone to fight for the country—they continued to pay sums for the support of their wives
and families. They were under no obligation except that of patriotism; they were under no legal obligation. Yet we are told that the Government must be tied entirely by what is legal. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, has pleased many in the War Office since his appointment. They were a little bit scared when they first knew that they were going to have a Secretary of State who was, as the last speaker said, one of the new democratic leaders. But they found very soon that it was convenient to have one of these new democratic leaders because they had never had a Secretary of State for War who agreed so fully with the official view of things.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should get away sometimes from the official view. He should take the broader view, because that is what the country expects of him. Supposing we could get the Leader of the House here tonight there are two things we might ask. The promise that we shall have a day set apart when we re-assemble in the Autumn to discuss this matter or that we should extend this part of the Session by an extra day and deal with this matter straight away. It is a matter of grave importance. This extra money to these men makes a great difference to their style of living, and I have spoken to a number of these men and know their difficulties. There is one man of whom am thinking who did wonderful work as a machine-gun officer at Hill 60. He told me that the addition to the money he was getting was this addition of 2d. a day, and the man shook with shame and indignation When he spoke to me about that 2d. a day for the work he had done. We have heard to-night of the protection that was given by the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) to the Prime Minister on the last occasion when this matter was debated. The guardian angel was then found on the Front Opposition Bench. One does not want to make any party references to the thing. We all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman did what he thought was right in the matter then, but I think if he was here to-night, in view of this great opposition that has been put up against the attitude of the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Member for Bewdley would be the very first to have admitted that he made a mistake on that occasion, and that he would do his best
to stand by us in the future. I am sure we shall get his support when this matter comes forward for further debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has mentioned that he was extremely sorry—I am sure he was—he was unable to put the full report before the House as promised. We have not had a full explanation why we have not had the evidence put before us. Surely if the Government had put on pressure, it could get things done. Before I sit down there is one thing I want to mention to show how little this Committee understood about the Army in many respects. The most marked of all is this sentence that has already been read, "The greatest of all the anomalies was between those who served in the trenches for a is a day in 1914"—nobody served for a 1s. a day; the rate was, I think, 1s. 6d., "and those who came in later." Then there was the reference to the "comparative comfort." What a great knowledge of the War the members of the Committee who penned that had? The comparative comfort in 1915! The comparative comfort of the second battle of Ypres. The comparative comfort in the following year for the men who served on the Somme—the comparative comfort to the men the year after at Passchaendale, and the men who were involved in the great retreat in 1918, and finally of those who went across those fever-stricken places which the Germans had left and who died like flies of influenza. That. I think, stamps the Report of this Committee as the Report of men—well meaning, perhaps—but men who understood nothing of the conditions under which the Army served, and therefore were not in a fit position to give a ruling on this most important question.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON, Junior: I do not propose to detain the House for many moments, but I should like to associate myself with the appeal that has been made to the Secretary of State for War for facilities to be granted for a further Debate on this important question. In spite of the fact that the Committee that was appointed to inquire into this question has come to the conclusion that the ex-ranker officers have no legal case, yet it seems to me clearly that there may be other grounds upon
which they may be entitled to the consideration of this House. If that be so, a further Debate can serve a useful purpose. But, while taking this view, I take exception to sonic of the remarks that have been passed in this Debate, and I am sure that hon. Members on these benches have listened with very great amusement to some of the arguments that have been put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway. The last speaker chided the Secretary of State for War for having, what he celled, the "official mind." He also referred to the fact that we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Great War, and that to-day, on this tenth anniversary, these ex-ranker officers have not had their grievances remedied.
I would ask whose fault is that? Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that for the four years following the conclusion of the great War the Government of this country was under a Liberal Prime Minister, and that for part of that time the War Office was under the charge of another Liberal Minister, while the right hon. Gentleman who has led the attack in this Debate was a distinguished member of that self-same Government So far as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, surely their memories are not so short as that they have forgotten that for a period of 12 months a distinguished Conservative was in charge at the War Office. I would suggest that while that is no reason for denying these men justice, it is a reason why hon. Members below the Gangway and opposite should be the very last people to gibe and rebuke the Labour Secretary of State for War. At the same time I would also appeal to the Secretary of State for War to consider very sympathetically the appeal that has been made to him tonight, and, if it be the intention of the House that these men are not entitled to their claim, the House should be able to express itself in the proper fashion. There can be no fear on the part of the Government why this Debate should not take place, and I would strongly urge the Secretary of State to consider that view.

Mr. J. HARRIS: I anticipate that the right hon. Gentlemen is wondering why some of us who have been watching and assisting, so far as we can, the case of these ex-ranker officers, are so tenacious in our requests to him to give us some-
thing more definite than he has agreed to do. The reason is that the Leader of the House regards this case as entirely closed. He has stated that, and stated it as recently as last week. Therefore, this is, so to speak, our last opportunity of getting a promise from the Government to carry out what we regard as the promise made, during the discussion on 13th March. But there are one or two points which I believe have not been made by previous speakers, and I think there is an additional reason for providing us with an opportunity of adequate discussion in that the evidence is not yet available. Had the evidence been available we should have been in an infinitely better position to discuss the case of these officers. Not only should we have had a fuller revelation of what they thought or of what they did, but we should also have had an opportunity of making suggestions which we know were laid before the Committee for the consideration of the Government. Therefore I submit that the fact that the evidence is not available is another and very strong reason for asking the
right hon. Gentleman to secure for us, as he can easily do if he wishes, a promise of another day in the autumn for the debate.
A good deal has been said, and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself rather emphasised it, that these men had no pressure put on them and that when they volunteered they knew everything they were entering into. I think that is entirely an unreal atmosphere. In order to understand the position we have to put ourselves back to the position in which the War Office was at the time. There was very great pressure put upon these men.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that that argument has already been used more than once. Hon. Members are not entitled to repeat one another's speeches.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Two Minutes before Two of the Clock until To-morrow (Tuesday).